Aileen Cannon Taking 'Unusual Step' in Jack Smith Hearing: Attorney
Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Cannon has been attacked by some legal experts after indefinitely postponing Donald Trump's classified documents trial.
The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case is set to take the "unusual" step of hearing arguments on whether Special Counsel Jack Smith should be removed from the prosecution from those not connected to the proceedings, a legal expert has said.
Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance made the remark about Judge Aileen Cannon while writing in her blog about upcoming legal proceedings involving the former president and his allies.
On Friday June 21, Cannon will hear arguments from several people not involved in the federal case, who will claim that Smith was unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland as this was not first approved by the Senate.
The rare move to hear from outside parties was previously criticized by legal experts. Cannon has put the federal classified documents trial on indefinite hold while she rules on a number of hearings and motions to dismiss connected the case.
The decision to delay the classified documents trial beyond its previous start date in May now means it is almost certain Trump will not appear before a jury to face the 40 federal charges before November's election.
Writing about the June 21 hearing in her "Civil Discourse" blog, Vance said: "Judge Cannon has set a day and a half of argument over this matter, including taking the unusual step of hearing from amici—lawyers who do not represent parties in the case, but who filed briefs on both sides of the issue as 'friends of the court.'"
Vance, who was the first female U.S. attorney nominated by former President Barack Obama, also noted that previous attempts to remove a Special Counsel of claims about their validity have failed.
"If this was any other judge, I would not be giving this a lot of thought," Vance wrote. "Hunter Biden tried this same argument and got nowhere. It was also raised during the [Robert] Mueller investigation and slapped down."
One of those who will be arguing that Smith was illegally appointed by Garland in November 2022 is Edwin Meese, who was appointed attorney general by former president Ronald Reagan.
In 1986, Meese appointed Lawrence Walsh to serve as Iran-Contra special counsel to investigate the illegal sale of arms from the Reagan administration to the Middle Eastern country.
When the appointment of Walsh and his investigation was challenged, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 1987 that it was constitutional.
"Although the regulation Meese acted under isn't precisely the same regulation Garland used, it is based in the same statutory authorities that were used when new Special Counsel regulations were promulgated in 1999 when Janet Reno was the Attorney General. They've been in use ever since," Vance wrote.
"So there is enormous irony that Meese is now arguing Merrick Garland lacked the power to appoint Jack Smith to be special counsel."
Meese has been contacted for comment via email
Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg previously hit out at Cannon's "highly unusual" decision to allow outside parties unconnected to the classified documents to offer arguments on whether Smith's appointment was unlawful at the June 21 hearing.
"Especially for the claim that the special counsel is unconstitutional," Aronberg told Newsweek. "Most other judges would have dismissed these claims already."
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges over allegations he illegally retained classified materials after he left office in January 2021, then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them.
Start your unlimited Newsweek trial