Attorney General Merrick Garland defended his appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate former President Donald Trump by highlighting his extensive legal background as a federal judge. Garland refuted claims that the appointment was unlawful, asserting that he is well-versed in the law and would not make such a mistake. He emphasized his reliance on the Justice Department’s law library as a testament to his commitment to upholding the law.
Garland compared the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to previous special counsels, such as John Durham and Robert Mueller, stating that the process followed for Smith’s appointment was similar to that of previous administrations. He noted that past court rulings, including by the Supreme Court, have upheld the legality of special counsel appointments. Garland expressed confidence in the constitutionality and validity of the appointment, leading the Biden administration to appeal Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling.
Judge Cannon had dismissed the federal classified documents case against Trump, citing that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland. She argued that Congress must appoint “constitutional officers” and approve spending for such prosecutions, asserting that the executive branch should not usurp that role. Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Smith’s investigation unlawfully drew funds from the Indefinite Appropriation, leading to tens of millions of dollars being spent without statutory authorization.
Despite the dismissal of the case, Special Counsel Smith’s team is expected to file a brief related to their appeal in August. The case involved allegations that Trump improperly hoarded sensitive and classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency. Trump faced the possibility of up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case. Judge Cannon raised concerns about the significant separation-of-powers violation and questioned whether a remedy other than dismissal could address the issue.
Garland defended his decision to appoint Special Counsel Smith and insisted on the constitutionality of the appointment process. He highlighted the importance of upholding the rule of law and the Justice Department’s commitment to following legal procedures in investigations involving public officials. Despite facing criticism over the appointment, Garland reiterated his belief that the appointment was legal and consistent with previous practices.
The legal battle surrounding the appointment of Special Counsel Smith reflects broader debates about the authority of the executive branch to investigate and prosecute high-profile cases involving former presidents. The case against Trump and the subsequent dismissal underscore the complexities of balancing the separation of powers and ensuring accountability for alleged wrongdoing. As the appeal process unfolds, the implications of Judge Cannon’s ruling and the continued scrutiny of the special counsel’s investigation will shape the legal landscape surrounding investigations into presidential misconduct.
