OPINION:
One of the least reported but arguably most important recent developments in the court cases against former President Donald Trump is that the two special prosecutors were illegally appointed to their positions.
It seems there is nothing “special” about either Jack Smith or Nathan Wade. Mr. Smith was appointed special prosecutor by Attorney General Merrick Garland, who — according to a “friend of the court” brief submitted by former Attorney General Edwin Meese last month — does not have the authority to make such an appointment. By law, special prosecutors must be appointed by Congress. So it seems Mr. Smith has been wielding powers he does not possess.
The D.C. Court of Appeals explicitly asked both Mr. Smith and Mr. Trump’s attorneys to respond to Mr. Meese’s amicus brief, a fairly uncommon step by an appeals court and a strong indication of the seriousness of Mr. Meese’s argument.
Even if the appeals court does not dismiss the charges against Mr. Trump in the D.C. case (and by implication, the Florida case, too), Mr. Meese’s argument may very well be embraced by Chief Justice John Roberts, for whom being perceived as politically motivated is anathema.
A dismissal by the Supreme Court of the federal charges against Mr. Trump would simply be an application of the law as it was intended to function. Mr. Smith has no legal authority to prosecute Mr. Trump, and this fact provides an excellent reason for the court not to have to rule on, for example, presidential immunity.
Ironically, Nathan Wade in Fulton County, Georgia, was also illegally appointed special prosecutor by his paramour, District Attorney Fani Willis, without the required approval of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners.
It has been reported that Ms. Willis appointed him after no one in her office wanted anything to do with prosecuting Mr. Trump — and it is believed the Fulton County commissioners might declare Mr. Wade’s appointment illegal. That would mean both Mr. Wade’s and Ms. Willis’ removal from the case.
The law seems to require that all three of these cases be tossed out. That would remove them as obstacles in Mr. Trump’s path back to the White House, which seems to be the reason they were brought in the first place.
BOB SEGAL
Burke, Virginia
Please read our comment policy before commenting.