Special Counsel Jack Smith has dealt a significant blow to former President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss the charges against him. On June 24, 2024, Newsweek reported Smith’s firm rejection of Trump’s claim that Smith’s appointment to oversee the federal classified documents case is unconstitutional. This development marks a crucial moment in the ongoing legal battle between Trump and the Department of Justice.
Smith’s Rebuttal and Historical Precedents
Smith’s rebuttal, detailed in court filings, relies on historical precedents to counter Trump’s arguments. Trump’s legal team has contended that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith in November 2022 lacked Senate approval, rendering it invalid. This argument forms a key part of Trump’s broader strategy to dismiss the classified documents case.
Trump faces 40 charges related to unlawfully retaining classified materials after his presidency and obstructing federal efforts to retrieve them. Pleading not guilty, Trump has consistently challenged the legitimacy of the investigation.
Historical Context
Smith’s court filings reference past appointments by former Attorney General William Barr. During Barr’s first term in the 1990s, he appointed special counsels without Senate confirmation. Smith highlighted specific cases: Nicolas Bua (1991, Inslaw affair), Malcolm Wilkey (1992, House banking scandal), and Frederick Lacey (1992, ‘Iraqgate’ controversy). These appointments, made under the same legal provisions used by Garland, support Smith’s stance.
Smith also pointed to Barr’s appointment of John Durham as Special Counsel to investigate the origins of the FBI’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which did not require Senate approval.
Garland’s Justification
Garland has emphasized the DOJ’s authority to appoint special counsels without Senate approval, citing the need for such appointments in extraordinary cases to serve the public interest. Smith’s appointment follows this legal framework, aimed at ensuring an impartial investigation into sensitive matters.
Current Legal Proceedings
Smith’s court filing follows a hearing by Judge Aileen Cannon on the legality of the special counsel’s appointment. Smith’s team noted that a similar challenge to Robert Mueller’s appointment in the Russia investigation failed, suggesting that Trump’s challenge may also be unsuccessful.
The legal debate over Smith’s appointment continues in Florida, with arguments set for Monday. Judge Cannon, appointed by Trump, has postponed the federal classified documents trial indefinitely while considering various legal motions from Trump’s team.
Broader Legal Challenges
Smith’s appointment controversy is one among many legal challenges facing Trump. The former president is dealing with multiple investigations and lawsuits, including probes into his business practices, inquiries into his role in the January 6 Capitol riot, and other civil lawsuits. These cases collectively represent significant legal hurdles for Trump as he navigates his post-presidency legal landscape.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s legal revelation undermines Trump’s attempt to dismiss the charges against him. By drawing on historical precedents and the legal authority of the DOJ, Smith has strengthened his position. As the legal battle continues, Trump faces an array of legal challenges that could have far-reaching implications for his political and personal future.
