Judge Aileen Cannon of Florida rigorously questioned attorneys on Friday regarding the extent of special counsel Jack Smith’s autonomy in the case involving classified documents and former President Donald Trump. This scrutiny followed Trump’s February motion to dismiss the case, alleging that Attorney General Merrick Garland had improperly appointed Smith.
The hearing was dense with legal arguments about constitutional provisions and statutes governing special counsel appointments, with Judge Cannon, appointed by Trump, refraining from immediately ruling on Trump’s motion. She has scheduled three additional days of hearings for next week to further explore these issues and address other pending legal matters.
In court filings prior to the hearing, Trump’s legal team argued that, apart from Smith and Robert Mueller, no individual in the last four decades had been appointed special counsel without prior Senate confirmation as a U.S. attorney. During the proceedings, Trump’s attorney Emil Bove raised concerns that allowing Garland to appoint someone without Senate vetting could create what he termed a “shadow government.”
Judge Cannon questioned the plausibility of such a scenario, given the well-defined statutory guidelines governing special counsel appointments. Bove underscored the potential risks associated with appointing individuals outside the traditional U.S. attorney pathway.
Towards the end of the hearing, Cannon also inquired about the involvement of Garland and President Joe Biden in the federal prosecution of Trump, a topic that has been contentious. Prosecutor James Pearce, representing Smith, was taken aback by Cannon’s line of questioning and declined to discuss communications between Garland and Smith, citing lack of authorization.
Cannon’s queries were aimed at clarifying Smith’s independence from Garland while acknowledging his subordinate status. She posed detailed questions about the role and authority of special counsels, withholding any indication of her eventual ruling.
