So, here’s the scoop: a bunch of lawyers dropped a bombshell in a Florida court by asserting that Jack Smith had every right to slap charges on Donald Trump for allegedly concealing classified docs.
And guess what? Aileen A. Cannon, a judge appointed by Trump himself, is now mulling over Trump’s legal eagles’ claim that Smith’s appointment as the special prosecutor was a no-go.
But hold on to your seats because legal experts have swooped in to give their two cents. A “friend of the court” submission from these experts – folks not directly part of the case – backed Smith’s legal position.
Fast forward to January 2021 post-White House exit, and the ex-prez is staring down 40 federal charges for allegedly mishandling materials swiped from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump, however, denies all allegations.
Joining the legal rollercoaster are well-known GOP names like Trevor Potter, former chair of the Federal Election Commission under George H.W. Bush; Alan Charles Raul, ex-Associate Counsel for Reagan; and Patrick Fitzgerald, a former fed prosecutor during both the G.W. Bush and Obama eras.
In a statement, these heavyweights emphasized their allegiance to upholding the Constitution, American interests, and the rule of law over the years.
They argued that Trump’s claim of Smith’s appointment as special counsel being unlawful was a no-go and stressed the importance of executive authority and enforcing laws enacted by Congress.
They also dropped some legal knowledge, stating that under U.S. law, the Senate offers advice and consents on principal officer appointments by the President, but may delegate nominating powers for inferior officers to the AG, which is completely legit.
The court was urged not to take a wild stance in deciding if the AG lawfully named the Special Counsel. It was clarified that the Special Counsel isn’t a Principal Officer, as per the law, positioning them as a subordinate officer under the AG.