Staff Reports
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has ruffled some feathers among the left by dismissing the highly contentious classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. At the heart of this decision was her ruling regarding the supposedly unconstitutional appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith. This didn’t sit well with Attorney General Merrick Garland, who apparently wasn’t in the mood to appreciate the judge’s commitment to the Constitution.
Garland, taking a break from his usual haunted expression, shared his thoughts on Judge Cannon’s decision in a recent NBC News interview. It seems his self-love for his legal credentials knew no bounds as he implied that she must not possess the intellectual capacity he brings to the table after decades of legal experience. Given Garland’s track record, this audacious stance is almost more comedic than a Saturday Night Live skit.
On today's Lawfare Daily, Benjamin Wittes spoke to @AnnaBower, @qjurecic, @ARozenshtein, @nkorpett, and @MDParadis about Judge Cannon's order granting Trump's motion to dismiss the classified documents case, what Jack Smith may do now, and more.https://t.co/1PcKuwmKdN pic.twitter.com/mAjKzKGQoV
— Lawfare (@lawfare) July 16, 2024
While Garland rambled on about his time as a federal judge, he also reiterated that the “legal beast” of Special Counsel Smith’s appointment was totally above board. He insisted that this most recent appointment neatly fit into the same framework as past special counsels during other administrations. It’s almost as if he’s forgotten that not all special counsels carry the same resume. Smith doesn’t have the Senate confirmation that both Robert Mueller and John Durham possessed — a small detail that Garland glossed over like a bad hair day.
This bluster didn’t stop Garland from misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s posture on special counsels. He claimed the court had previously upheld such appointments, but he conveniently skipped over the nuanced critiques raised by Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas pointed out that previous rulings have only given cursory nods to the independent counsel’s authority, meaning Garland’s assurances were little more than wishful thinking.
Judge Cannon came down hard on Smith’s appointment, highlighting an essential constitutional principle: the appointment must come from a formal presidential selection, followed by Senate confirmation. Only then does it become a constitutional act worthy of respect. In her ruling, Cannon effectively pulled the rug out from under Garland’s argument, suggesting that it’s not just a matter of political will, but rather a matter of maintaining the fundamental separation of powers that keeps the government in check.
Garland might want to sharpen his legal acumen before taking swings at judges who are simply trying to uphold the Constitution. With his explanations crumbling faster than a stale cookie, one has to wonder whether he truly believes in the integrity of the judicial process or if he’s just trying to muster some credibility for a decision that seems rooted in political spite rather than legal precedent. If the future of our legal landscape depends on his opinions, then one can’t help but think it’s time for a serious overhaul of the Justice Department.
