>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The ruling from Judge Cannon reads: “Former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this Order. The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.” She further added, “Special Counsel Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, but the Court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.”
This ruling effectively halts the prosecution led by Special Counsel Smith, dealing a severe blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to pursue charges against Trump. The court found that the Special Counsel’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation was also in violation of the Appropriations Clause, although no remedy for this violation was addressed due to the dismissal on other constitutional grounds.
The case against Trump stemmed from a grand jury indictment on June 8, 2023. The former president was charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, alongside conspiracy and concealment charges. The indictment was later expanded to include 42 charges in a superseding indictment, which also implicated Trump’s co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
Trump’s legal team had previously filed a motion to dismiss these charges, arguing that the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith were unlawful. The expanded evidentiary hearing for this motion took place in June, where Trump’s lawyers argued that the Special Counsel should be categorized as a “principal officer” and therefore subject to Senate confirmation. According to NBC News, Trump’s lawyer, Emil Bove, argued that the statutory text cited by the Special Counsel’s office “does not authorize” the U.S. Attorney General’s appointment of the Special Counsel.
During the hearing, Judge Cannon questioned whether Attorney General Garland had any oversight role in the indictment against Trump. Jack Smith’s prosecutor, James Pearce, declined to answer, stating that it would be against policy to do so.
In the aftermath of this ruling, Trump’s announcement to sue the DOJ has only intensified the political drama surrounding the 2022 raid. FOX News reported that Trump is seeking $100 million in damages, citing “tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump.”
Carry 46 rounds concealed? (comfortably)
The Mar-a-Lago raid was initially ordered to investigate whether Trump had unlawfully retained classified documents after leaving office. Special Counsel Smith eventually brought 37 felony charges against the former president, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements. Trump has vehemently denied all charges, pleading not guilty.
As this legal battle unfolds, it is clear that Trump’s lawsuit against the Biden DOJ will be a significant chapter in the ongoing political turmoil in Washington. The case not only questions the legality of the actions taken by the DOJ but also shines a light on the broader issues of political accountability and the use of power within the federal government. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for both Trump’s future and the Biden administration’s legacy.
