Raw: [Why Cannon’s rejection of special counsel Smith may not help Hunter Biden The Washington Post] {Article Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/16/hunter-biden-trump-special-counsels/}
Accessibility statementSkip to main contentDemocracy Dies in DarknessSign inDemocracy Dies in DarknessNational SecurityForeign Policy Intelligence Justice Military National SecurityForeign Policy Intelligence Justice Military Why Cannon’s rejection of special counsel Smith may not help Hunter BidenHunter Biden and Donald Trump made completely different arguments as to why the appointments of their special counsels were unconstitutional. 5 minSorry, a summary is not available for this article at this time. Please try again later.Hunter Biden steps into a car upon arrival at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington on July 1. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)By Perry SteinUpdated July 16, 2024 at 6:17 p.m. EDT|Published July 16, 2024 at 2:47 p.m. EDTA federal judge’s surprise ruling that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed to investigate Donald Trump probably won’t be much help to President Biden’s son Hunter, who is also being prosecuted by a special counsel.The same month that the former president’s lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon in southern Florida to disqualify Smith, Hunter Biden made a similar argument to a federal judge in California.But Cannon’s reasoning appears not to apply to Biden because of the particulars of his own special counsel’s appointment.The younger Biden said in February that a nine-count federal tax case against him should be dismissed because special counsel David Weiss, who is leading the prosecution, was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Judge Mark C. Scarsi rejected the request about six weeks later. Biden is scheduled to go to trial in Los Angeles in September.AdvertisementBiden made that same argument about his special counsel a few months earlier to the judge overseeing a separate federal gun case against him in Delaware. That judge, too, rejected the motion and Biden was convicted at trial of three felony gun charges last month.Cannon, the judge overseeing Trump’s classified document case, on Monday agreed with Trump that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution, dismissing the entire 40-count classified document case against him. The Justice Department quickly said it would appeal.Biden and Trump made completely different arguments as to why the appointment of their special counsels were unconstitutional. Hunter Biden’s attorneys argued that Justice Department regulations state that a special counsel should be someone who is outside the government, to ensure the investigation is independent. Trump’s lawyers took the opposite approach. They said special counsels must be confirmed by the Senate. Smith was hired from outside the Justice Department and was not confirmed by the Senate. Weiss is also the U.S. attorney for Delaware — a position which requires Senate confirmation.AdvertisementBut the two defendants made similar arguments about the funding of special counsels, though Cannon’s decision did not rely on her assessment of the legality of the funding. Still, a legal expert said Biden could use that part of Cannon’s ruling in a possible appeal.Cannon’s ruling said regulations do not allow a special counsel with as much authority as Smith to be appointed without presidential or congressional involvement. Her decision — which broke with previous rulings on special or independent counsels by other federal courts — did not directly say whether she thought someone like Weiss would be considered a lawful special counsel appointment.Her ruling was a seismic victory for Trump and for conservative legal groups who have long questioned the legality of special counsels. But it does not affect other judicial districts, and it could be overturned entirely by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which has already rejected two of Cannon’s past rulings.AdvertisementIf the question of the constitutionality of special counsels reaches the Supreme Court, whatever the justices decide would apply to the entire nation, likely dictating how and when attorneys general can appoint special counsels.Share this articleShareThe Florida ruling “certainly does not apply as binding precedent,” said Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School. “Because it is just one district court, which does not even bind another district court sitting next door. And it certainly doesn’t bind other district courts sitting in another circuits.”Special counsels are supposed to have more independence than a typical prosecutor; attorneys general appoint them to reassure the public that high-profile, politically fraught cases will be shielded from political interference.Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Weiss, already the top federal prosecutor in Delaware, as special counsel last year. The appointment gave Weiss clear authority to seek indictments of the president’s son in other states. In the months after his appointment, Weiss filed the indictments in California and Delaware on federal tax and gun charges.AdvertisementBoth Biden and Trump argued that special counsels should not have unlimited funds to prosecute their cases and such money should be approved by Congress — an argument Cannon agreed with as well.But her strongest rebuke of the constitutionality of special counsels was about the appointment of the position, not the funding of it. Still, Richman said Cannon’s language denouncing the funding of the special counsel could be helpful to Biden if he appeals his judges’ decisions on whether the appointment and funding of Weiss violates the Constitution.“There are aspects of Cannon’s opinion that can provide aid and comfort to [Biden],” Richman said.Separately, Alexander Smirnov — an FBI informant who Weiss indicted as part of the Biden probe — filed a motion late Monday that cited Cannon’s decision and said the case against him in California should be dismissed because of the unlawful appointment and funding of Weiss.The judge overseeing that case is not bound by Cannon’s decision, though he could decide to give weight to the legal arguments she makes.Share CommentsSign upTOP STORIESAdviceMoral dilemmas, relationships, parenting and moreAsking Eric: Warn friends that filmmaker soliciting funds is a grifter? Carolyn Hax: 20-year-old listens to racist rapper. Should his parent speak up?Miss Manners: How do I avoid awkward small talk with actors’ families after shows?backTry a different topicSign in or create a free account to save your preferenceswashingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Postwashingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post
