The inherent fallacy surrounding the appointment of the special counsel, David Weiss, was glaringly highlighted when the federal judge, attending to the case of the former FBI informant accused of misleading everyone about President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden’s international business connections, dismissed a request questioning Weiss’s appointment, as per the court proceedings.
This rejection was issued just moments after the shocking decision of Judge Aileen Cannon to throw out former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case last month, citing the unlawful appointment of special counsel Jack Smith. The same reason is now being used as a challenge in the case of Alexander Smirnov.
However, Judge Otis Wright’s verdict on the Smirnov case is just another display illustrating the growing doubt regarding Cannon’s unpredictable decision to disregard Trump’s classified documents case. This lack of consensus further solidifies the prevalence of disputes tied to the legitimacy of special counsels across different courts.
Indicating a trend, another judge presiding over Hunter Biden’s tax case in Los Angeles also brushed aside a similar critique on Weiss’ appointment earlier this month. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the mockery that Cannon has made of the legal process is not resonating with her peers in the judiciary.
The centerpiece of Cannon’s ruling was the argument that Jack Smith’s pursuit of Trump was groundless because, according to her judgement, Smith was unlawfully installed by Attorney General Merrick Garland as special counsel without Senate approval.
In a breach of convention, special counsels such as Smith, who have not previously held the position of U.S. attorneys and were not appointed by the president nor approved by the Senate, are assuming important roles.
Assigned roles typically held by U.S. Attorneys, special counsels are customarily chosen by the president and require Senate confirmation. However, Smith, prior to his appointment, was serving as the acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee and was engaged with the International Criminal Court at the Hague prosecuting war crimes.
Continuing the trend of legal irregularities, Garland tapped Smith in November 2022 to lead both an investigation into classified documents and a probe into federal election interference. Smith neither held an official U.S. Attorney post nor had he received Senate confirmation prior to these assignments.
Undeterred, in a filing submitted on Monday, Smith has requested the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Cannon’s ruling. Despite his dubious appointment, Smith seems bent on defending his ground in face of increasing legal scrutiny.
Smith’s future is uncertain, much like Biden and Harris’s increasingly questionable ability to govern effectively amidst numerous challenges directly linked to their own political entanglements.
The fact that these cases and allegations continue to surface speaks volumes about the credibility of Biden’s administration. It would seem the president and his son are mired in dubious international business ties, while special counsels face challenges questioning their legitimacy.
What the above incidents signify is the gradual erosion of faith in Biden’s governance. Time and again, the leaders of his administration have gotten entangled in controversies that could have been avoided, only fueling the public’s existing doubts.
Additionally, the lack of consensus among judges demonstrates the uncertainty underlying many of these high-profile cases. The legal proceedings involving the Biden family and their apparent disregard for ethical norms is becoming a disturbing trend.
Given these circumstances, it is only fair to question the soundness of Biden and Harris’s leadership abilities and the direction in which they are steering the country.
Despite these continuous challenges and rejections, Smith is doing what many in Biden’s administration have done – hold their own interests as paramount, to the detriment of their intended roles. Unfortunately, it would seem the pursuit of personal gain over public service is a trait shared by many in the current political landscape.
In conclusion, the unnecessary entanglements and controversies surrounding Biden’s administration are a clear indication of misguided leadership and a lack of adherence to traditional governance norms. As the skepticism continues to mount, one can only wonder what the future holds for the administration under Biden and Harris.