Former President Donald Trump's legal team has recently urged a federal appeals court to uphold the dismissal of the case involving classified documents against him. The case, which accused Trump of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in July. The judge ruled that the prosecutor who brought the charges, special counsel Jack Smith, was illegally appointed.
The dismissal of the case came as a relief for Trump, as it ensured there would be no trial before the November presidential election. Another case brought by Smith, alleging Trump's involvement in overturning the 2020 election results, was also delayed due to a Supreme Court opinion granting broad immunity to former presidents.
Smith's team has appealed the decision to dismiss the documents case, arguing that Judge Cannon's ruling goes against decades of precedent. They claim that upholding the ruling could raise questions about the legality of numerous appointments within the Executive Branch.
In response, Trump's lawyers have defended the dismissal of the case, stating that there was no valid basis for Smith's actions against the former president. They criticized Smith for allegedly operating unlawfully without proper oversight and accountability.
Judge Cannon based her dismissal on the assertion that no existing statute allows for the appointment of a special counsel by an attorney general. She also deemed Smith's appointment unconstitutional since he was directly appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland without Senate confirmation.
However, Smith's team has pointed out that previous special counsels, such as Robert Mueller and Robert Hur, were appointed in a similar manner without facing legal challenges. Trump's legal team has also used the illegal appointment argument in another case related to the 2020 federal election interference.
The legal battle surrounding these cases continues as both sides present their arguments to the appeals court, setting the stage for a potentially significant decision regarding the legality of special counsel appointments and the prosecution of former presidents.
