Massie grilled Merrick Garland about the legality of appointing Jack Smith to get Trump [VIDEOS]

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky., challenged Attorney General Merrick Garland appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday.

During the hearing, Massie questioned Garland about Smith's authority to oversee classified documents and the Jan. 6 investigation involving former President Donald Trump.

CEO of Christian Gold Company: “It makes a difference WHO YOU WORK WITH”

Massie expressed concern about the constitutionality of appointing a special counsel without congressional authorization. He cited amicus briefs filed by former Attorney General Ed Meese under President Ronald Reagan, arguing that Garland's appointment of Smith, a private citizen, violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause.

In the brief, he claims that Smith, without the authority of the federal government, is akin to a “naked emperor.” The brief further argues that Smith, being wrongly appointed, has no more authority to represent the United States in court than public figures such as Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.

Meese claimed the “illegality” of Smith's appointment should be enough to invalidate his role and urged the court to deny any review. The brief also noted that Smith was appointed to investigate potential violations of law related to the 2020 presidential election and the events surrounding the certification of the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021, including allegations involving former president trump.

In response to Massie's concerns, Garland defended the appointment by stating that regulations exist under which the attorney general can appoint a special counsel. He mentioned that these regulations have been in place for several decades and have been used by attorneys general of both major political parties. Garland stated that the matter of a Justice Department employee acting as special counsel has already been processed through adjudication.

Garland further argued that previous special counsel appointments made by him and other attorneys general, including former Attorney General William Barr, were made pursuant to a regulation that references a statute.

However, Meese's brief emphasized that no existing statute, constitutional provision or other law authorizes the attorney general to appoint a private citizen as a special attorney with extraordinary criminal law enforcement authority.

The importance of Meese's brief was also acknowledged during the Supreme Court's oral arguments on Trump's presidential immunity, with Justice Clarence Thomas citing it. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the matter later this month.

Massie, echoing Meese's arguments, argued that the creation of such an office would require an act of Congress. He also noted that even without an act of Congress, the Constitution stipulates that the president must appoint and the Senate must confirm people to these positions.

The issue raised by Massie underscores the ongoing debate over the authority to appoint a special counsel and the potential constitutional implications surrounding Smith's position as a private citizen overseeing the sensitive investigation.

Thomas Massie was not alone in the grill by Merrick Garland. Matt Gaetz and Harriet Hageman also held her feet to the fire. I will see:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of RVM News. contact with us for guidelines for submitting your own comment.