Trump’s Lawyers Push to Dismiss Election Interference Case \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Donald Trump’s legal team has asked a federal judge to dismiss the election interference case against him, arguing that special counsel Jack Smith was illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Trump’s lawyers claim the appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, echoing a similar argument that led to the dismissal of the classified documents case in Florida. While that ruling is under appeal, Trump’s team is seeking to apply the same reasoning to the election interference case, which charges him with attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump Lawyers Challenge Election Interference Case: Quick Look
- Legal Motion: Trump’s attorneys asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss the election interference case, arguing Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.
- Similar Argument: The claim mirrors a successful argument in Florida, where Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed a separate case over classified documents.
- Smith’s Appointment: Trump’s team contends that Smith was unlawfully appointed by the attorney general without Senate confirmation.
- Smith’s Response: Smith’s legal team asserts that several statutes authorize his appointment and warns of broad implications if Cannon’s ruling stands.
- Trump’s Remarks: Trump has praised Judge Cannon and stated he would fire Smith if reelected.
Deep Look:
The case, overseen by Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, accuses Trump of attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which culminated in the violent January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Trump’s attorneys are arguing that because Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland without Senate confirmation, his appointment violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, rendering all actions taken by Smith and his team unlawful.
This is not the first time Trump’s legal team has made this argument. A similar claim succeeded in a different case, when Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge in Florida, dismissed charges related to Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Cannon ruled that Smith’s appointment lacked a legal basis and violated the Constitution because the attorney general, rather than the Senate, appointed him. The Justice Department has appealed that ruling, arguing it contradicts decades of legal precedent.
Trump’s legal team now seeks to apply the same reasoning in the election interference case. However, they face an uphill battle with Judge Chutkan, who has expressed skepticism about the legal basis of Cannon’s ruling. Last month, Chutkan said she did not find Cannon’s rationale “particularly persuasive.”
At the heart of Trump’s legal argument is Jack Smith’s November 2022 appointment. Garland selected Smith, then a war crimes prosecutor at the Hague, to serve as special counsel, a decision made outside the Justice Department’s usual channels. Trump’s lawyers argue that this appointment was politically motivated, accusing Garland of targeting Trump during his campaign to unseat President Biden in the upcoming election. “Everything that Smith did since Attorney General Garland’s appointment… was unlawful and unconstitutional,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
In their court filings, Trump’s attorneys leaned heavily on the reasoning provided by both Cannon and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas had previously expressed doubts about the legality of Smith’s appointment, providing further support for Trump’s argument. Trump’s lawyers characterized Smith’s appointment as unconstitutional from the outset and requested permission to file a formal motion to dismiss the case.
Smith’s legal team, however, maintains that the appointment was entirely legal. In their defense, they pointed to multiple statutes that authorize Garland’s selection of Smith as special counsel, citing long-standing precedent. They have also warned that Cannon’s ruling, if allowed to stand, could have far-reaching implications, potentially calling into question the legitimacy of hundreds of federal appointments within the Executive Branch. Smith’s team argues that Cannon’s dismissal is a significant break from established legal norms.
In a Thursday interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump stated that if reelected, he would fire Smith “within two seconds.” He also praised Judge Cannon for her ruling in the Florida case, calling her “brave” and “brilliant.” Trump emphasized that he had never met Cannon, nor had he spoken with her, but highlighted her decision as a critical victory for his legal defense.
This latest legal challenge comes amid a broader effort by Trump’s legal team to dismantle the cases brought against him, many of which stem from his actions surrounding the 2020 election and its aftermath. Trump faces a growing number of legal battles as he campaigns for a return to the Oval Office, positioning himself once again as a contender for the Republican nomination in 2024.
Despite these legal hurdles, Trump’s political standing remains strong within his base. His favorability rating, while dipping in the aftermath of the January 6 attack, has remained consistent. According to Gallup, Trump’s approval rating was at 46% in September, demonstrating resilience despite the ongoing legal investigations. His legal team hopes that by dismissing the special counsel cases against him, Trump can refocus on his campaign without the looming threat of federal charges.
While Cannon’s ruling in Florida was a significant legal victory for Trump, it remains to be seen whether Judge Chutkan will be as receptive to the same arguments. Chutkan’s skepticism, along with the appellate process surrounding Cannon’s decision, may complicate Trump’s path to dismissal in the election interference case.
The case’s outcome will not only shape Trump’s legal future but could have a profound impact on the broader legal landscape, particularly in how special counsel appointments are handled in future investigations. If Trump’s challenge succeeds, it could call into question the validity of numerous federal prosecutions, creating uncertainty for ongoing investigations.
For now, Trump’s legal team is betting on their argument that Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional to halt the election interference case in its tracks, aiming to clear one of the many legal obstacles Trump faces in his bid to reclaim the presidency.
