Three respected legal scholars and political figures, former Attorney General Ed Meese, Professor Gary Lason, and Steven Calabresi, have just moved the ball forward on attempting to stop the lawfare campaign against former President Donald Trump.
They did so by filing a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States to decIare that Jack Smith was never constitutionally appointed as Special Counsel and thus that he should be stripped of his powers and his actions so far be rendered moot.
In the writ of cert, the three constitutional scholars argue that the correct constitutionaI process for a Special Counsel should be, since only Congress can create offices subordinate to the Attorney General’s role, for the President to appoint a Special Counsel who is then only vested with his or her powers after the Senate confirms the Special Counsel in the role.
U P D A T E
NEW: Judge Cannon Scorches Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump, Cites Biden’s Double Standard
Judge Aileen Cannon delivered a blistering critique of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Donald Trump during a hearing on Thursday. The hearing, which took place in a South Florida courtroom this morning, was another episode in the ongoing saga of Trump’s classified documents case.
The case against Trump, spearheaded by Special Counsel Jack Smith, accuses the former president of mishandling classified documents, a charge that has been thrust into the spotlight amidst revelations concerning President Joe Biden’s handling of similar materials. In a major development, Cannon specifically touched on the alleged double standard in the application of justice regarding the two cases, notably citing Robert Hur’s explosive report on Biden. classified documents case is in peril as could have arisen out of the day’s courtroom proceedings.
While both cases may contain elements of technical illegalities, Donald Trump’s case is far less egregious than Joe Biden’s, given the fact Trump was a sitting president with ultimate declassification authority; he stored the documents at Mar-a-Lago, his authorized presidential office away from the White House; and he has further protection by the Presidential Records Act.
Thus, in the event of a “guilty” verdict in the Trump case, it will be a case of “selective and vindictive prosecution” — as blatant a case of election interference in U.S. history.
A Trump guilty verdict would thus be a political outcome subverting the will of American voters. It would be the true “attack on democracy” that the Democratic Party is dishonestly protesting about, while it interferes in America’s elections and compromises institutions such as the rule of law.
If Judge Cannon dismissed the Trump classified documents case with prejudice, it would be a true victory for “democracy.”