WASHINGTON — Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump appeared before a federal judge on Thursday, advocating for the dismissal of the election interference allegations against him. They insisted that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unlawful and asserted that the funding for his office should be terminated.
This line of reasoning is reminiscent of a previous case in which a Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, agreed to dismiss charges against Trump related to the unlawful retention of classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago residence. Currently, Smith’s team is appealing this dismissal, arguing that Cannon’s decision contradicts longstanding legal precedents.
In the Washington case, Trump is accused of collaborating to undermine the 2020 presidential election results, culminating in the violent January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. However, Trump’s legal challenge may encounter significant obstacles, especially since the presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan, recently expressed that she found Cannon’s reasoning to be “not particularly persuasive.”
Central to the defense’s argument is Smith’s appointment as special counsel in November 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland. This decision was made outside the Justice Department by selecting Smith, who was serving as a war crimes prosecutor in The Hague, reflecting a similar process used by attorneys general across both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Trump’s legal representatives contended that Garland “violated the Appointments Clause by appointing a private citizen, Smith, to prosecute President Trump, during the time Trump was actively campaigning to reclaim the Oval Office from the Attorney General’s superior, without valid statutory authority.” They further claimed, “Every action taken by Smith since his appointment by Attorney General Garland has been unlawful and unconstitutional.”
In her Florida ruling regarding the classified documents case, Cannon determined that there was no legal basis for Smith’s appointment and described it as unconstitutional because he was appointed directly by the attorney general without the need for Senate confirmation. Her decision referenced a recent opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, casting doubt on the legitimacy of Smith’s role.
In contrast, Smith’s team argued that there are at least four legal statutes justifying his appointment. They cautioned that upholding Cannon’s ruling could jeopardize the legitimacy of numerous personnel appointments across the Executive Branch.
In hopes of leveraging Cannon’s and Thomas’s viewpoints, Trump’s attorneys formally requested Chutkan’s approval to file a motion to dismiss the election interference case, contending in their proposed motion that “this unjust case was ultimately flawed from the start—unconstitutional even before it began.”
Additionally, during an interview on Thursday with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump expressed his intent to terminate Smith “within two seconds” if he were to regain office. He also praised Judge Cannon, stating, “We had a brave, brilliant judge in Florida. She’s a brilliant judge, by the way. I don’t know her. I have never spoken to her. But we had a brave and very brilliant judge.”