Judge Aileen Cannon is presiding over Donald Trump’s documents case in Florida and is now considering whether or not Jack Smith was appointed illegally. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him special counsel without getting Senate approval. Mark Levin, a constitutional attorney, stated that Garland had no constitutional right to do this.
Levin addressed it on his Fox News show last night. He said the Left hates the Constitution, and they hate America. They want to destroy the Constitution.
Levin said they had eviscerated the commerce clause, attacked the electoral college, election laws, and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th amendments. They ignore the 25th because it applies to Joe Biden. They are not supporting democracy.
In the case of Jack Smith’s appointment, they are violating Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The purpose of this is to separate powers to avoid dictatorship and tyranny. Constitutionalists look and ask what the Constitution says, and the Left looks at it and asks, how can we get around it?
Former attorney generals Meese and Mulkasey signed on to the Trump case as friends of the court, agreeing with Levin.
Former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey wrote to bolster Trump’s challenge. They said that “nearly all” special prosecutors in recent history were previously appointed by the sitting president and approved by the Senate as U.S. attorneys. Smith was “neither,” they wrote, a contention the group will make in court on Friday.
Attorney Matthew Seligman argued Friday afternoon as a friend of the court, supporting the prosecution’s argument that the Supreme Court’s Nixon precedent affirms the lawfulness of Smith’s appointment. “The lawfulness of the special prosecutor’s appointment was critical,” he said regarding the ruling. “It was central and integral to the decision.”
Trump’s team argued that the Nixon precedent did not have any binding authority, deeming it “dicta” rather than a holding of the case. Moreover, Bove said that “there was not proper attention paid to the Appointment Clause.”
Professor Eliason, a New York Times and WaPo columnist and former federal prosecutor, figured out what the DOJ can do if Judge Aileen Cannon rules that Jack Smith had been appointed illegally. He added that she probably won’t do it because they can get around it.
He outlined four steps to do exactly that:
“If Judge Cannon dismisses the indictment because she finds Smith was unlawfully appointed, here’s what DOJ should do:
- Don’t appeal;
- Have US Atty in FL refile the same charges in a new case – it would be very easy and fast;
- case gets reassigned – hopefully to a new judge;
- Smith’s prosecution team are designated as Special AUSA’s in FL to continue prosecuting the case.”
4) Smith’s prosecution team are designated as Special AUSA’s in FL to continue prosecuting the case.
I can’t see any reason this wouldn’t work – it’s faster than an appeal and gives them a chance of drawing a new judge without having to argue for removing Cannon. 2/
— Randall Eliason (@RDEliason) June 22, 2024
Correction: Comments by Meese and Mulkasey were added after publication.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
If you are not going to prosecute China Joe for his STEALING documents out of a SCIF while a Senator and Vice President then how can you Prosecute a former President?
Because we play by the rules, but tyrants don’t!
It’s clear the assignment was illegal, so it should be nullified. They would appeal that ruling, because it would be an incredible defeat for Garland, who would be angry. A new case does not jump to the top of the list. The backlog is probably months.
Levin’s latest whines are about playing the hero and supporting Trump. It’s a show. We learn nothing from him. He is always far behind in analysis. Trump is far ahead, and popular, so Levin sees it in his interest to do his conservative act.
Levin is not at all a conservative, when it comes to actual policy. The most recent key moment was his tantrum over McCarthy being removed. He bitterly attacked 2 decent and smart men, Biggs and Gaetz. McCarthy, having broken several big promises, surrendered to the left, passed far left spending, with no debt limit. His excuses were poor and contrived. Levin supports reckless spending over a real stand against it. That is also the Faux News position, where his loyalty is.
We can go back to 2016 when the great loudmouth attacked Trump the entire year, saying he was not conservative. I trust an ouija board over Levin.
I believe they would be forced to appeal it, too. Transferring the existing case would be problematic as all warrants, subpoenas and evidence thus far could be nullified as fruit from the forbidden tree or Unconstitutionally-collected evidence by a prosecutor operating without legal authority.
This is such a severe consequence that I believe it’s possibly the only impediment to Cannon agreeing to the unconstitutionality of the appointment. It craters the whole case and forces a complete restart, if that’s even possible now. All of the evidence has been mishandled and tainted.
If the Florida circuit does what the NY and DC circuits do, they will appoint the same judge because she is already familiar with the case. It saves time.
Yes, Eliason is a leftist, and bluffing. He doesn’t want her to rule in favor of the constitution. Firstly, Judge Cannon is impartial and doesn’t care if she gets the case reassigned to her. Secondly, from her standpoint it’s more important to get the proceedings right. She will rule correctly on the constitutional issues. Lastly, the district court will reassign the case in the most expeditious manner, probably right back to the same judge. Having ruled on the important constitutional issue, the case will resume with a demoted Jack Smith.
Yes plus a new trial would take a few months to start, which helps Trump avoid election interference.