Jack Smith appealed a ruling that tossed Trump’s classified documents case

Jack Smith and the 11th Circuit in the Watergate-era High-Judgemental-Circumstantial-Centric-Indictment-Constitutional-Anti-Deportation Case

Even before her dismissal, Cannon was criticized by legal observers for delays and rulings that favored Trump. If the Appeals court reverses her ruling, Cannon may be asked to withdraw from the case.

Smith says that Cannon was mistaken in his ruling that the process used to appoint the Special Counsel was unconstitutional.

In her analysis, Cannon examined an important 1974 Watergate-era Supreme Court opinion. Cannon determined that the Justice’s “passing remarks” are not “binding precedent on future cases.” But in his brief Smith says, “The district court erred.” Smith says that the Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General has authority to appoint a special prosecutor.

Trump’s lawyers have 30 days to file their reply to Smith’s brief. Smith is asking the 11th Circuit to schedule oral arguments, saying he believes they “would assist the Court’s decisional process in this case of significant public importance.”

Prosecutors filed a superseding indictment in the federal criminal case against Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, after the Supreme Court granted the former president substantial immunity, according to a new court filing.

Prosecutor Molly Gaston, in a new court filing, said the Justice Department will not insist that Trump make an in-person appearance for arraignment on the new indictment. The Justice Department will talk with the Trump lawyers to come up with a proposal for how to proceed in the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan had asked for an update by Friday.

Jack Smith has been working with other officials within the Justice Department on the case, which accuses the president and others of trying to rig the election in their favor. The scheme allegedly culminated in a cascade of violent attacks on police at the U.S. Capitol three years ago.

Trump has denied all charges. His lawyers claim that his actions and words before January 6, 2021, constituted legitimate inquiry about election fraud. The Supreme Court largely sided with Trump and gave the former president immunity from prosecution if he did things that were “core” to his official duties.

The high court ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, specifically carved out part of the case where Trump had been accused of misusing the Justice Department to pursue phony theories of fraud at the ballot box. But the opinion left open many critical questions for a D.C. trial judge to pursue.

The case won’t be tried before the election. If Trump wins, he could order his appointees at the Justice Department to drop it.