Special counsel prosecutors have urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the criminal case against former President Donald Trump over his retention of classified documents. This move follows the trial judge's decision to dismiss the charges, citing that the special counsel's appointment violated the U.S. Constitution.
The appeal, filed by special counsel Jack Smith, marks the beginning of what is expected to be a lengthy legal battle, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome could significantly impact not only the classified documents case but also other criminal cases against Trump.
In an 81-page filing, prosecutors argued that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon made an error in dismissing the charges on the grounds that the special counsel was illegally appointed. They contended that Cannon ignored previous court rulings and misinterpreted four statutes that authorized Smith's appointment.
The filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit initiates a process that could take months or even years to resolve. Prosecutors aim to revive a case that once appeared to be a significant legal threat to Trump.
Judge Cannon's decision to dismiss the case was based on a distinction that Smith, unlike other special counsels, was brought in externally and was not a Senate-confirmed Department of Justice official at the time of his appointment.
In her ruling, Cannon stated, "Because special counsel Smith’s exercise of prosecutorial power has not been authorized by law, the court sees no way forward aside from dismissal of the superseding indictment."
However, prosecutors argued in their appeal that Cannon was wrong to focus on Smith's status as an external appointee. They emphasized that the attorney general has broad authority under federal law to appoint prosecutors, including special counsels.
"Under the appointments clause," prosecutors wrote, "Congress may vest a head of department with the power to appoint an inferior officer. Here, Congress has authorized the attorney general, by law, to appoint as an inferior officer the special counsel."
The dispute centers on the interpretation of four statutes that were debated during a multi-day hearing in federal district court. These statutes will likely play a key role in the appeals process.
For example, prosecutors argued that Section 515 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code allows the attorney general to appoint officers of the Department of Justice to run legal proceedings. Cannon, however, ruled that this statute only applied to existing officers of the department, not special counsels.
Prosecutors also pointed to Section 533, which allows the attorney general to appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States. They argued that this statute gave Attorney General Merrick Garland the authority to appoint Smith as special counsel for the Trump cases. Cannon, however, disagreed, stating that this statute was intended for hiring FBI officials, not for appointing special prosecutors without Senate confirmation.
The appeal sets the stage for a complex legal battle that will determine the future of the case against Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment