Attorney General Merrick Garland defended his appointment of special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday as the department appeals the decision finding he was improperly appointed, saying he would not make such a “basic mistake.”
Garland, in an interview withNBC Nightly News with Lester Holtnoted that he chose to speak to the outlet at the Department of Justice’s legal library.
“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like someone who would make this basic error about the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said.
The comments were a nod to a ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon earlier this month that dismissed a federal case against former President Trump over the handling of confidential documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence.
Cannon sided with Trump’s lawyers and concluded that Smith’s appointment was not lawfully appointed. The decision came as a shock to many legal observers who described Trump’s motion as a long shot given the widely established law on the appointment of special counsels.
Smith’s team has appealed the ruling and is expected to file a brief on the case late next month.
Garland on Tuesday reviewed a series of cases in which other special counsel appointments were upheld by various courts.
“Our position is that it is constitutional and valid. That’s why we appeal. I will say that this is the same special counsel appointment process that was followed in the previous administration, and for Special Counsel Durham and Special Counsel Mueller, various special counsels over the decades, going back to Watergate and the Special Counsel in that case, — Garland said.
“To date, every court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.”
Cannon, in his 93-page decision, described the issue as a separation of powers issue that deprives Congress of the ability to evaluate executive branch appointees.
“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction arising from the separation of powers and gives Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of conferring appointment power on inferior officers,” Cannon wrote.
“The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps this important legislative authority, transferring it to a Department Head and, in the process, threatening the structural freedom inherent in the separation of powers.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
