Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2024, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Precedent supports the lawfulness of Smith’s appointment. The fact that Judge Aileen Cannon is holding Friday’s hearing at all helps the defendant.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-jack-smith-classified-documents-hearing-rcna157768
Of the many motions pending in the classified documents case, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is holding a hearing Friday on one that strikes at the heart of it: whether special counsel Jack Smith was lawfully appointed. Donald Trump is backed in his effort by outside parties — called “amici” or “friends of the court” — who are attacking that appointment......
The legal issue at the center of the hearing is the Constitution’s appointments clause, which says that the president:
shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . 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 Heads of Departments.
Under that clause,
part of the dispute comes down to what type of “officer” Smith is: a “principal” one who would need Senate confirmation (which Smith doesn’t have), or an “inferior” officer working under Attorney General Merrick Garland (the “head” of the Justice Department), who appointed Smith under statutory authority given to the attorney general. Supreme Court precedent and the approval of special counsel Robert Mueller by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit support the latter position that Smith is an inferior officer appropriately appointed by Garland.,,,,,
Of course, the special counsel is defending his authority. Contrary to the Meese-backed claim, Smith maintains that he’s an “inferior” officer, noting that Garland supervises and can remove him, review his decisions and even override them. In response to the Tillman claim, Smith cites Supreme Court precedent to support the idea that the special counsel qualifies as an officer.
Backing Smith is the third outside group appearing Friday, which includes former prosecutors and elected officials. Calling the challenge against the special counsel “demonstrably incorrect,” they echo Smith’s point that he’s an inferior officer whose appointment was authorized. “The Special Counsel’s circumscribed role and jurisdiction, limited tenure, and effective control by the Attorney General render him an inferior officer,” they write. They’ll be represented by Matthew Seligman, with law professor Josh Blackman arguing for Tillman and Gene Schaerr representing the Meese group.
Cannon evidently asked if AG Garland was actually supervising Special Counsel Jack Smith which is not relevant to the issue. AG Garland has the power to supervise which is all that is required.
= new reply since forum marked as read