Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are making a bold claim, arguing that the special counsel appointed to investigate him for hoarding classified documents at his Florida estate was illegally appointed and therefore the case should be dismissed. This assertion is part of a long-standing dispute between Trump’s legal team and the Justice Department, with the legal back-and-forth ongoing for over a year. Trump’s attorney, Emil Bove, claims that the Justice Department could create a “shadow government” through the appointment of special counsels, a notion that was met with skepticism from prosecutors. The defense argues that there was nothing improper or unusual about the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The legal challenge centers on decades-old regulations governing the appointment of special counsels like Smith, with Trump’s team arguing that the attorney general’s appointment of Smith was not lawful because it was not approved by Congress. Trump’s lawyers are pointing to the regulations, which state that a special counsel must be appointed in consultation with Congress. However, prosecutors argue that the appointment of Smith was legal because it was done in accordance with the regulations, even if it wasn’t explicitly approved by Congress.
Donald Trump. (Via Donald Trump./Twitter)
The hearing is being presided over by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who has already shown a willingness to entertain defense arguments that prosecutors have called “frivolous and meritless.” Cannon has been intensely scrutinized over her handling of the case, including for taking months to issue rulings and for scheduling hearings on legally specious claims. In March, prosecutors rebuked Cannon after she asked both sides to formulate jury instructions and to respond to a premise of the case that Smith’s team called “fundamentally flawed.”
The case has been plagued by delays, with a trial date now seemingly impossible given the ongoing legal disputes. The hearing comes just weeks after Trump was convicted in a separate state case in New York of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn actor. The Supreme Court is also poised to issue a landmark opinion on whether Trump is immune from prosecution for acts he took in office. Further complicating matters is a request for a limited gag order that prosecutors have made to bar Trump from making comments that they fear could endanger the safety of FBI agents and other law enforcement officials involved in the case. Trump’s lawyers have argued that any restrictions on his speech would infringe on his free speech rights. The outcome of the hearing will likely have significant implications for the ongoing investigation and the legal precedent surrounding the appointment of special counsels.
