FORT PIERCE, Fla. — Lawyers for Donald Trump made a longshot argument Friday that the Justice Department prosecutor who charged the former president with hoarding classified documents at his Florida estate was illegally appointed and that the case should therefore be dismissed.
The challenge to the legality of special counsel Jack Smith's appointment kicked off a three-day hearing that is set to continue next week and bring further delays to a criminal case that had been scheduled for trial last month but has been snarled by a pileup of unresolved legal disputes. The motion questioning Smith's selection by the Justice Department is one of multiple challenges to the indictment the defense has raised, so far unsuccessfully, in the year since the charges were brought.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon heard hours of arguments Friday from lawyers for both sides, with Trump attorney Emil Bove asserting that the Justice Department risked creating a ''shadow government'' through the appointment of special counsels to prosecute select criminal cases.
Prosecutors say there was nothing improper or unusual about Smith's appointment, with James Pearce, a member of Smith's team at one point saying: "We are in compliance. We have complied with all of the department's policies.''
Cannon did not immediately rule, but in an apparent sign that she was taking the Trump team motion seriously, grilled Pearce on what oversight role Attorney General Merrick Garland — who appointed Smith — had in seeking the indictment.
Pearce did not have an immediate answer to the question but noted, ''I don't want to make it seem like I'm hiding something.''
Even as Smith's team looks to press forward on a prosecution seen by many legal experts as the most straightforward and clear-cut of the four prosecutions against Trump, Friday's arguments didn't concern the allegations against the former president but centered instead on arcane regulations governing the appointment of Justice Department special counsels like Smith. The hearing reflects the judge's continued willingness to entertain defense arguments that prosecutors say are frivolous and meritless, contributing to the indefinite cancelation of a trial date.
Cannon, a Trump appointee, had exasperated prosecutors even before the June 2023 indictment by granting a Trump request to have an independent arbiter review the classified documents taken from Mar-a-Lago — an order that was overturned by a unanimous federal appeals panel.