Surprise! Just in time for the GOP National Convention, United States Federal District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed all charges against Donald Trump in a case alleging the former president mishandled classified documents after leaving office, reported Jurist. The ruling centered on Senior Counsel Jack Smith, whose appointment to prosecute the case was ruled unconstitutional.
In November 2022, US Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to serve as special counsel with
oversight of two investigations related to Trump. Clear conflict-of-interest
issues would have marred prosecutorial efforts by the Justice Department of current
US President Joe Biden, Trump’s two-time opponent for the White House. In such
politically sensitive cases, or where it would otherwise be in the public
interest to do so, US law provides
for the appointment of a special counsel — an independent officer who is
authorized to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute politically divisive
allegations.
First, Smith was tasked with investigating whether Trump
attempted to interfere with the 2020 election that ended his presidency, and
the subsequent transfer of power to Biden. Second, he was to continue an
investigation that had turned up multiple classified documents in various
unsecured locations throughout Trump’s primary Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.
In the summer of 2023, Smith unveiled indictments in
both investigations.
Trump moved to dismiss the classified documents indictment,
arguing Smith’s appointment by Garland violated the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution, which
states in relevant part that the president has the authority to:
…nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate … appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as
they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the
Heads of Departments.
The clause serves as a check on executive power by ensuring
key government officials are vetted by both the executive and legislative
branches, thereby preventing either branch from wielding unchecked authority to
fill key positions. Notably, its use of the general term “all other Officers of
the United States,” paired with the specific use of “such inferior Officers, as
[Congress thinks] proper” leaves room for interpretation.
If Smith were considered among the “other” group, his
appointment would have required presidential nomination and legislative
consent. If he were in the “inferior” group, the requirements could be more
flexible. Smith argued he qualified as an “inferior” officer, thus validating his
appointment by the US Attorney General.
In Monday’s ruling, District Judge Aileen Cannon
reluctantly, and only for limited purposes, accepted Smith’s claim that as
special counsel he was an “inferior” officer, but found his appointment
violated the clause regardless:
the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in
the Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the
United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to
conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer
is no. None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment …
gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows
upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial
power wielded by Special Counsel Smith. Nor do the Special Counsel’s strained
statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on
out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise. … The bottom line is this: The Appointments
Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of
powers.
Cannon suggested that for such an appointment to be valid,
the Special Counsel would need to be nominated by the President and confirmed
by the Senate, or Congress would need to pass new legislation consistent with
the Appointments Clause.
Trump’s latest court victory follows a Supreme Court decision granting him sweeping prosecutorial immunity for acts considered to
be in the outer bounds of his official duties as president. In May, he
was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business
records. US law does not prevent a convicted felon from holding the nation’s
highest office. Trump has long maintained that all cases pending against him
are the product of political persecution. Following the release of Monday’s
decision, he wrote via social media that all cases pending against him should be dismissed:
The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these
Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe
Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. Let us come together to END all Weaponization
of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!
The news comes days after Trump was shot in an
apparent assassination attempt.
His chief opponent in the 2024 White House race, Biden, was
separately accused of mishandling classified materials after his tenure as vice
president to Barack Obama. The Justice Department announced its decision not to prosecute earlier this
year. That case was also led by a special counsel, Robert K. Hur, who concluded
prosecution would be inappropriate because the evidence failed to establish the
president’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
To read more CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment