- 15:35Trudeau Government Orders TikTok to Close Canadian Offices, but Access Remains Unrestricted for Users
- 14:55Israeli Parliament Approves Controversial Law to Deport Relatives of Alleged ‘Terrorists
- 14:20MP Mike Amesbury Faces Assault Charge Following Alleged Street Incident
- 13:12Trump's Election Sparks Unprecedented Surge in Billionaire Wealth
- 12:12Morocco Showcase Summit: A Gateway to Tourism and Investment Opportunities
- 11:13Urgent Calls and Delayed Action: A Closer Look at Valencia's Flood Response Crisis
- 10:40Over a Decade of Service to Casablanca's Mobility
- 09:57Trump's Return to Power: Promises and Challenges Ahead
- 09:22Morocco's Unyielding Commitment to Its Territorial Integrity in the Sahara
Follow us on Facebook
Special Counsel Seeks Appeals Court Intervention in Trump Classified Documents Case
Special counsel Jack Smith has urged an appeals court to reinstate the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, challenging recent claims that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional.
In a brief filed with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce defended the legitimacy of Smith's appointment. Pearce argued that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss the indictment, based on alleged constitutional violations in the appointment process, deviates from established Supreme Court precedents. Pearce emphasized that the Attorney General's authority to appoint special counsels is well-founded and historically supported.
Judge Cannon, appointed by Trump, had ruled last month that Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution’s appointments and appropriations clauses. Pearce’s brief highlighted the long-standing tradition of special counsel appointments, referencing a 1998 law review article by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The brief also underscored the Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in *United States v. Nixon*, which affirmed the enforceability of subpoenas issued by special prosecutors. Although the Nixon case did not directly address the legality of special counsels, Pearce argued that the ruling presumes their validity and should be considered binding on lower courts.
Pearce warned of broader implications if Cannon’s dismissal is upheld, suggesting that it could undermine the appointment authority for numerous federal officials across various departments. This potential outcome, he argued, illustrates the flaws in Cannon’s rationale.
Trump's spokesperson, Steven Cheung, has called for Cannon’s dismissal to be upheld, dismissing the legal challenges as “political attacks” aimed at interfering with Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to charges related to the mishandling of classified information and obstruction, has frequently sought to delay legal proceedings until after the election.
In related legal battles, Trump has requested delays in other cases, including his hush money case and the federal election interference case. The ongoing appeals and delays are expected to affect the trial schedules for these cases.
Pearce’s filing emphasizes the need for the appeals court to reverse Cannon’s decision to ensure the continued validity of special counsel appointments and to avoid significant disruptions within the federal government.