Two brilliant law professors, who had the privilege of clerking for the esteemed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, along with the former attorney general of the Reagan administration, are boldly challenging the jurisdiction of special counsel Jack Smith to file criminal charges against former president Donald Trump.
In a compelling 25-page document submitted to the Supreme Court by the esteemed former AG Edwin Meese, these distinguished legal minds, including professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, assert that Attorney General Merrick Garland lacked both the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Mr. Smith, a private citizen who had not been confirmed by the Senate, to spearhead the high-level criminal investigation into Mr. Trump. It is clear that these learned individuals hold an unwavering belief in the strength of their argument and in the pursuit of justice. Upon his appointment in November 2022, Mr. Smith was reportedly residing in the Netherlands, despite his employment as a U.S. attorney.
According to the document, the proper appointment of a special counsel entails going through multiple stages. This includes undergoing the president's selection process, followed by the rigorous confirmation process by the Senate. Once appointed, the special counsel is entrusted with the responsibility of serving in the Justice Department. Notably, several individuals who have previously held the position of special counsel, such as John Durham, Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, have all been appointed in accordance with the law. Their appointments reflect the careful consideration and adherence to the established procedures in ensuring a lawful and effective execution of their duties.
According to federal laws and the Constitution, the Attorney General is not authorized to appoint an unconfirmed private individual as a "Special Counsel" to temporarily replace a United States Attorney. The events of November 18, 2022, unfolded as previously described, leading to the conclusion that both the appointment and any subsequent judicial proceedings were unlawful.
Last month, the president's legal team submitted the legal document to the justices as they deliberated whether to expedite Mr. Smith's case and whether or not Mr. Trump had presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. On criminal accusations stemming from his endeavors to rescind the 2020 presidential election and another case concerning the alleged mismanagement of secret materials after Mr. Trump's departure from office, Mr. Smith is prosecuting Mr. Trump.
Justices did not want to speed up the legal fight. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia briefly addressed the issue of Mr. Smith's legal ability to pursue charges against Mr. Trump.
An argument in one of the papers claimed that the appointment of Jack Smith was wrong. Are you employed by that company?" Biden nominated Judge J. Michelle Childs to the bench. "At this moment, we have not discussed it, but I believe it raises very compelling issues," said D. John Sauer, Trump's attorney. Upon remand to the trial court, the Trump defense team may bring up the matter. Court observers have expressed mixed feelings about the possibility that Mr. Smith's appointment was illegal and would render the criminal accusations against Mr. Trump moot.
The senior fellow of the liberal People for the American Way, Elliot Mincberg, said that it does not seem to be a "credible argument." He brought attention to the fact that, when appointed, special counsels like Robert Mueller—who oversaw the investigation into potential Russian collusion—were not working for the Justice Department.
Mr. Mueller did not press charges against Mr. Trump, in contrast to Mr. Smith. Mr. Mincberg did mention that Mr. Garland has supported and approved Mr. Smith, however. It wasn't only him who gave his approval to the indictment. He said that the fact that the attorney general had given his stamp of approval to it was a major flaw in the Meese case.
Committee for Justice member Curt Levey expressed his belief that the Meese amicus brief presented a compelling case, but he questioned the Supreme Court's "courage" to dismiss the charges against Mr. Smith because of his illegitimate appointment. "Removing the element of politics and publicity makes it a compelling argument," he said.
In a compelling 25-page document submitted to the Supreme Court by the esteemed former AG Edwin Meese, these distinguished legal minds, including professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, assert that Attorney General Merrick Garland lacked both the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Mr. Smith, a private citizen who had not been confirmed by the Senate, to spearhead the high-level criminal investigation into Mr. Trump. It is clear that these learned individuals hold an unwavering belief in the strength of their argument and in the pursuit of justice. Upon his appointment in November 2022, Mr. Smith was reportedly residing in the Netherlands, despite his employment as a U.S. attorney.
According to the document, the proper appointment of a special counsel entails going through multiple stages. This includes undergoing the president's selection process, followed by the rigorous confirmation process by the Senate. Once appointed, the special counsel is entrusted with the responsibility of serving in the Justice Department. Notably, several individuals who have previously held the position of special counsel, such as John Durham, Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, have all been appointed in accordance with the law. Their appointments reflect the careful consideration and adherence to the established procedures in ensuring a lawful and effective execution of their duties.
According to federal laws and the Constitution, the Attorney General is not authorized to appoint an unconfirmed private individual as a "Special Counsel" to temporarily replace a United States Attorney. The events of November 18, 2022, unfolded as previously described, leading to the conclusion that both the appointment and any subsequent judicial proceedings were unlawful.
Last month, the president's legal team submitted the legal document to the justices as they deliberated whether to expedite Mr. Smith's case and whether or not Mr. Trump had presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. On criminal accusations stemming from his endeavors to rescind the 2020 presidential election and another case concerning the alleged mismanagement of secret materials after Mr. Trump's departure from office, Mr. Smith is prosecuting Mr. Trump.
Justices did not want to speed up the legal fight. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia briefly addressed the issue of Mr. Smith's legal ability to pursue charges against Mr. Trump.
An argument in one of the papers claimed that the appointment of Jack Smith was wrong. Are you employed by that company?" Biden nominated Judge J. Michelle Childs to the bench. "At this moment, we have not discussed it, but I believe it raises very compelling issues," said D. John Sauer, Trump's attorney. Upon remand to the trial court, the Trump defense team may bring up the matter. Court observers have expressed mixed feelings about the possibility that Mr. Smith's appointment was illegal and would render the criminal accusations against Mr. Trump moot.
The senior fellow of the liberal People for the American Way, Elliot Mincberg, said that it does not seem to be a "credible argument." He brought attention to the fact that, when appointed, special counsels like Robert Mueller—who oversaw the investigation into potential Russian collusion—were not working for the Justice Department.
Mr. Mueller did not press charges against Mr. Trump, in contrast to Mr. Smith. Mr. Mincberg did mention that Mr. Garland has supported and approved Mr. Smith, however. It wasn't only him who gave his approval to the indictment. He said that the fact that the attorney general had given his stamp of approval to it was a major flaw in the Meese case.
Committee for Justice member Curt Levey expressed his belief that the Meese amicus brief presented a compelling case, but he questioned the Supreme Court's "courage" to dismiss the charges against Mr. Smith because of his illegitimate appointment. "Removing the element of politics and publicity makes it a compelling argument," he said.
