12 mins Ago
Judge Aileen Cannon will hear arguments on whether the funding of Smith’s position is constitutional, and Smith’s gag order request.
Jun 24, 2024
| Updated
Jun 24, 2024
In rebuttal, Mr. Bove reiterated that dismissal of the indictment was appropriate relief. He pointed to United States v. McIntosh, where the case was dismissed after appeal when the Justice Department acknowledged the case could not have been brought without the specific funding stream.
Mr. Bove argued that more congressional oversight was needed, while the government argued not much was required at all.
Mr. Pearce said that the Justice Department holds that, since 1978, the only principal officer in the department is the attorney general.
Judge Cannon asked why U.S. Attorneys and Inspector Generals are subject to confirmation by Congress if they are also inferior officers.
Judge Cannon asked the prosecution to explain the “regulatory special counsel” concept introduced.
Mr. Pearce said that after the EGA expired, attorneys general relied on regulatory authority to appoint special counsel. He used as an example Robert Fiske, whom attorney general Janet Reno appointed as special prosecutor.
Judge Cannon asked if there has ever been a case where an attorney general has rescinded these orders “midstream” an investigation.
“I’m not familiar with any,” Mr. Pearce said.
Judge Cannon said the absence of any historical examples would suggest that special counsel removal is not an expected remedy.
Mr. Pearce said he agreed that under the EGA the independent counsel had more independence, by design, and the Reno Regulations fixed Congress’s concerns about lack of oversight of these outside counsel.
Mr. Pearce argued that the special counsel is still independent, but receives more oversight than the previous “independent counsel” position.
He said the attorney general’s power to rescind or modify the special counsel order at any time does not limit the special counsel’s independence, but ensures that the attorney general is always the principal officer and the special counsel is always the inferior officer.
Judge Cannon asked Mr. Pearce multiple times whether this was a constitutional challenge, and Mr. Pearce answered it was not, but, pressed for an answer, said this was “not a hill I’m inclined to die on.”
This drew a laugh from the judge, who said that was fine and told Mr. Pearce he was doing a fine job arguing his points.
Attorney David Harbach has previously argued for the prosecution in Judge Cannon’s court, and raised his voice and yelled multiple times, frustrating the judge. Mr. Pearce appears to be taking the opposite tack, and the judge appears receptive.
Judge Cannon asked whether the Justice Department could fund the special counsel’s office via alternative sources, and Mr. Pearce answered that it could.
The Justice Department receives permanent yearly appropriations, which can be drawn on to fund the special counsel as well, he said.
James Pearce, arguing for the prosecution, argued the office’s spending is in line with long-standing understanding that Congress has given permanent, indefinite appropriation for such use.
A source and a purpose is all that is necessary to satisfy the appropriations clause, he argued. The judge asked whether he could point to a statute to support to this, and he pointed to a statute about the attorney general’s scope of authority.
They discussed the expenditures of Mr. Smith’s office, which is being made public for six-month intervals. Mr. Pearce said he did not know what the review process for the expenditures were.
The Justice Department’s internal regulations governing outside counsel, referred to as the Reno Regulations as they were created under Attorney General Janet Reno, cannot be cited as law, Mr. Bove argued, and cannot be used to support Mr. Smith’s funding.
Last week, the government had argued that Mr. Smith was independent, satisfying the appointment issue, but this week they will have to argue that he is subject to supervision in order to satisfy the appropriations issue, Mr. Bove argued.
Judge Cannon asked, “is there any cap to this funding?”
Mr. Bove said there was not, and that posed a separation of powers problem.
Mr. Bove argued the Justice Department’s interpretation of the Appropriation’s Clause is “strained.”
The prosecution’s position is that the department has statutory authority to “permanent, indefinite appropriation” for an independent counsel.
Mr. Bove pointed to two federal cases where funding issues tied to the Justice Department were the basis for a defendant challenging the prosecution. Dismissal of the indictment was “appropriate” in this case, he argued.
Mr. Smith was in the courtroom today, but not delivering the arguments.
Defendants were not present. Attorney Emil Bove argued for former President Trump.
13 hours ago
At 10 a.m., U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will hear arguments in the Appropriations Clause challenge raised by former President Donald Trump in his motion to dismiss the classified documents case based on the alleged unlawful appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.
Then at 3 p.m., the court will hear arguments on the special counsel’s request to modify former President Trump’s conditions of release, which is effectively a gag order.
On June 25, the court will also hold a hearing related to former President Trump’s motion alleging prosecutors violated his attorney-client privilege and that law enforcement unlawfully raided Mar-a-Lago. The morning session of this hearing will not be open to the public because it deals with grand jury materials that remain under seal.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office again requested that a federal judge impose a gag order on former President Donald Trump in his classified records case, saying that new evidence of an alleged threat targeting an FBI agent is a good enough reason to support their arguments.
In a court filing submitted on June 21, Mr. Smith urged U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to rule favorably on his earlier gag order request, saying that a new piece of evidence should support his argument. He claimed that an alleged threat by a Trump supporter toward an FBI agent shows that former President Trump’s remarks about law enforcement officials pose an imminent threat.
“Statements that present a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to the law enforcement agents working on this case pose a significant and imminent threat to the integrity of these criminal proceedings,” said the court motion, which was filed on the same day that Judge Cannon held a hearing on the legitimacy of Mr. Smith’s appointment as special counsel in the classified records case.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a hearing for June 24 on prosecutors’ request to modify the conditions of release for former President Donald Trump in the Southern District of Florida, where he has been charged with 40 counts related to allegedly mishandling classified documents.
The prosecution is requesting that the judge make clear that the former president “may not make statements that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of this case.”
Original News Source Link – Epoch Times
Running For Office? Conservative Campaign Consulting – Election Day Strategies!