That is unless he changes his mind. You have to remember; Justice Clarence Thomas dropped an open hint that Special Council Jack Smith’s appointment may not be legitimate. AG Merrick Garland has weighed in on this . . . Attorney General Merrick Garland defended his appointment of special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday as the department appeals a ruling finding he was wrongly appointed, saying he wouldn’t make such a “basic mistake.” Garland, in an interview with NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, noted that he chose to sit down with the outlet at the Justice Department’s law library. “For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so.” Special
Topics:
Angry Bear considers the following as important: DOJ Special Council, Jack Smith, law, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Planned Tariffs, An Economy Argument with Political Implications
Joel Eissenberg writes Will DOGE be an exercise in futility?
Bill Haskell writes The spider’s web called Healthcare Insurance
Bill Haskell writes Funding Public Goods Problematic??? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire
That is unless he changes his mind. You have to remember; Justice Clarence Thomas dropped an open hint that Special Council Jack Smith’s appointment may not be legitimate.
AG Merrick Garland has weighed in on this . . .
Attorney General Merrick Garland defended his appointment of special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday as the department appeals a ruling finding he was wrongly appointed, saying he wouldn’t make such a “basic mistake.”
Garland, in an interview with NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, noted that he chose to sit down with the outlet at the Justice Department’s law library.
“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so.”
Special Council Jack Smith files his brief with the Eleventh Circuit.
On Tuesday, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s opening brief is due in the Eleventh Circuit, where he’s appealing Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss his prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents and obstructing the investigation into his crimes. Judge Cannon ruled in July that the process used to appoint the Special Counsel was unconstitutional and dismissed the case on that basis.
Notably, no other judge to consider the issue has ruled that way, and prosecutions conducted by special counsels have been routine, if infrequent.
So, what can we expect from the prosecution’s opening brief?
This is an “interlocutory” appeal before trial, meaning the only issue before the court is whether Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss was correct. The Eleventh Circuit will decide whether or not a special counsel like Jack Smith, who came in from outside of government, can prosecute a case when the attorney general determines one is necessary.
The parties may try to inject two other issues, as well. Trump will undoubtedly try to argue the entire case should be dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. That issue isn’t properly before the court on this appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit applies very strict rules about only hearing issues that are. We’ll see if that holds up in Trump’s case, as it should. But we’ll likely see the word immunity more than once in Trump’s brief, even though this is only supposed to be the government’s appeal of the Judge’s decision against them, dismissing the case because Judge Cannon believes that the Special Counsel’s appointment was unconstitutional.
The issue that is more likely to find its way into the appeal is whether Judge Cannon should remain on the case if the indictment is reinstated. If they win this appeal, the government could ask the court to reassign the case to a new judge. They could also stay silent on that issue and leave it up to the court, hoping the three-judge panel will act on its own. That has happened in other cases in the Circuit, where a trial judge’s decisions resulted in multiple reversals on appeals involving related issues.
Jack Smith never asked Judge Cannon to recuse herself. If he had, she would have been required to explain the basis for her decision in a written order if she declined to recuse. That would have given the government (and the court) a record to work with. Absent that, the government could argue that her decision to dismiss, on top of Judge Cannon’s earlier errors, means it would be better to send the case back to a new district judge, who could give the case a fresh look.
In U.S. v. Martin, the 11th Circuit case we’ve discussed previously, a district judge repeatedly issued shockingly low sentences in a substantial white-collar fraud case. The Eleventh Circuit ruled,
“In light of the two reversals in this case and three other appeals in which we have reversed the same judge for extraordinary downward departures that were without a valid basis in the record, we find it likely that ‘the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside.’”
Given Judge Cannon’s early decisions in a related matter, where she tried to prevent the government from even using evidence obtained during the search of Mar-a-Lago, and continuing through to dismissing the case outright, it would be appropriate for either the government or the court to suggest that the interests of justice would be best served by reassigning the matter.
Of course, Jack Smith would have to get his case back in court for the identity of the judge to matter. He should win this appeal outright, given a number of prior decisions in the District of Columbia that go his way, but even if he doesn’t, the decision is not a substantive one about the merits of the prosecution but rather one about whether a special counsel can bring the case. Even if the Eleventh Circuit were to affirm Cannon’s decision dismissing the case, the local U.S. Attorney in Miami could reindict it.
That’s the state of play for the case. Tuesday, Jack Smith files his opening brief. Trump will have the opportunity to respond and Smith will get to file a reply brief. Under Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “The appellee must serve and file a brief within 30 days after the appellant’s brief is served. The appellant may serve and file a reply brief within 21 days after service of the appellee’s brief.” Neither party has sought to expedite the case.
Merrick Garland defends Jack Smith special counsel appointment The Hill.