Attorney General Merrick Garland suggested Tuesday that it was unlikely he illegally appointed special counsel Jack Smith to investigate alleged crimes against former President Donald Trump, given his long legal career.
Judge Eileen Cannon earlier this month dismissed a federal classified documents lawsuit against Trump, ruling that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland, a decision that infuriated Biden administration officials.
“I’ve been a federal judge for over 20 years. Do I seem like the kind of person who would make such a fundamental error in the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said. interview On NBC Nightly News.
The Attorney General said his “favorite room” within the Justice Department to make this point is the law library.
“Our position is that it is constitutional and valid, which is why we appealed,” Garland added.
“I would say this is the same process for appointing a special counsel that was used by the previous administration. [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] “I have great respect for the multiple special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate and for Mr. Mueller, who served as special counsel in that case,” he said.
“To date, every court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of the appointment of a special counsel has upheld it.”
Cannon, in his July 15 order, ruled that Congress must appoint “constitutional officers” and that Congress must approve expenditures for such prosecutions.
“That function cannot be usurped or dispersed elsewhere by the executive branch, whether in this case or any other, whether in times of urgent national need or otherwise,” she wrote in her 93-page ruling.
The judge found that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation resulted in illegal withdrawal of funds from the open-ended budget.”
“The Office of Special Counsel has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all of which was unconstitutionally drawn from its open-ended budget,” Cannon wrote.
“Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution have spanned more than 18 months, been heavily funded by the Treasury Department without statutory authorization, and at this point it seems nearly impossible to rewrite history. A court is at a loss to understand how this serious separation of powers violation can be resolved with a remedy other than removal, but the answer is not entirely obvious and precedent is not well developed,” she added.
Smith’s legal team is scheduled to file briefs by the end of August on the appeal of the case in which the 78-year-old Republican presidential candidate is accused of improperly storing classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago home after leaving office.
Trump could face up to 450 years in prison if convicted of all charges in the case.
