Home high profile Court to consider former Clinton investigator turned Trump impeachment lawyer’s argument that Judge Cannon ‘correctly dismissed’ Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case

Court to consider former Clinton investigator turned Trump impeachment lawyer’s argument that Judge Cannon ‘correctly dismissed’ Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case

Court to consider former Clinton investigator turned Trump impeachment lawyer’s argument that Judge Cannon ‘correctly dismissed’ Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case

Signaling something of a continuation of the amici curiae fight over special counsel Jack Smith’s authority that preceded Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to toss Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Monday allowed the former Whitewater independent counsel, a law professor, and a legal organization to file a brief saying the dismissal didn’t go far enough.

The 11th Circuit on Monday issued a short order granting the amici curiae (or “friends of the court”) — Robert Ray, the originalist Landmark Legal Foundation, Ray, and law professor Seth Barrett Tillman — permission to file their brief.

Ray, who once took over for Ken Starr in investigating the Clintons and Bill Clinton’s lies about the Monica Lewinsky scandal but ultimately did not indict the former president, later became a lawyer for Trump in the 2020 Ukraine impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, an impeachment that ended in acquittal just like the Jan. 6 impeachment that followed a year after.

In early October, the amici asserted that their views could be of some “assistance” to the 11th Circuit because Cannon’s dismissal order concluding Smith was unlawfully appointed and unlawfully funded in violation of the Constitution in a few instances cited their supplementary arguments.

While Jack Smith has repeatedly argued that history is on his side, the amici have so far said Cannon “correctly dismissed the indictment” but that the ruling could have and should have been worse for the special counsel.

“The District Court described the ‘historical backdrop’ supporting Smith’s case as ‘spotty.’ The record here is not spotty—it is near-empty,” the brief said. “The District Court understated how weak the historical record is for Smith.”

Read the amicus brief here.

Colin Kalmbacher contributed to this report.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Note: Thank you for visiting our website! We strive to keep you informed with the latest updates based on expected timelines, although please note that we are not affiliated with any official bodies. Our team is committed to ensuring accuracy and transparency in our reporting, verifying all information before publication. We aim to bring you reliable news, and if you have any questions or concerns about our content, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.