Judge Cannon to Hear Arguments on Legitimacy of Smith Appointing as Special Counsel

The media is out to get Judge Cannon right now, and it is severely turning up the heat.

Over the last few weeks, the New York Times has put out a steady stream of hit pieces that have more or less accused Cannot of rigging the trial in Trump’s favor.

Now, if she really wanted to do that, she would have honored Trump’s request to have the trial dismissed.

Hit Job

At the heart of the complaints against Cannon is the length of time she is using to make decisions as well as the motions she is hearing.

For instance, an upcoming motion concerns the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment.

While Dems and liberals say this is not a worthwhile motion and nothing more than a delay tactic, there is some meat to this beef.

Technically, a special counsel is to be ordered by the president or Congress, neither of which was the case with Jack Smith. However, those rules were supplemented in 1993 by then-Attorney General Janet Reno, which gave the AG the power to appoint a special counsel.

So, really, this is challenging the 1993 rule put in place by, yes, a Democrat Attorney General.

Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, as have several others, but let’s not forget that Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham as special counsel during this term, so this argument is going to stir up a hornet’s nest.

Per Section 600.4 (b) of Title 28 – Judicial Administration Chapter VI, the Attorney General has full control over the assignment to a special counsel of additional jurisdiction that is ‘necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light’ during a special counsel’s investigation.

“A special counsel is to consult with the Attorney General, who will then ‘determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.’”

This is a rule, as noted above, that has been leaned on by both sides of the aisle and has never been challenged since its inception.

There is a legitimate challenge to be made, but the challenge is likely to fail based on precedent.

Even if Cannon were to rule in Trump’s favor on this, the decision would get overturned on appeal or by the Supreme Court, so I doubt Cannon wants that on her record.

I do like the idea of hearing this argument, though, as it has been brought up before, so it will be good to put the issue to rest.

For Trump, it is just another way to delay the case and ensure this case never sees the inside of a courtroom before the election.