An Unsettling Few Days

The investigation into a recent shooting incident unfolds, with authorities probing its potential classification as a domestic terrorism incident due to the target being a significant political figure and the larger implications for the U.S. democratic process.

The incident is being investigated as a potential domestic terrorism attack due to the definition of domestic terrorism under U.S. law and the target being a major presidential candidate

Mary McCord and Weissmann discuss the legal perspective and investigative focus following the shooting incident at a political rally.

The statutory definition of domestic terrorism under U.S. law includes attacks intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence government policy through violence or intimidation

According to Mary McCord, the shooting is considered for investigation as an act of domestic terrorism due to the political nature of the rally, which may have been targeted to influence government policy or intimidate civilians. She notes that domestic terrorism includes acts of violence that break state law and are undertaken with such intimidating or coercive intent. Despite domestic terrorism not being a standalone crime under U.S. law, significant crimes like attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate fall under terrorism statutes.

One of the potential crimes that could apply is attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, which is considered a terrorism crime under U.S. law

McCord further clarifies that one of the potential charges against the shooter—if he had survived—could have been attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate. This charge is considered a terrorism-related crime and is specifically referenced under 18 U.S. Code, Section 351.

The investigation has two key purposes: determining if there is any ongoing threat and identifying any missed warning signs or lessons learned

Examining the shooter's background, online activity, associates, and how he obtained the weapons and explosives is crucial to understanding if there are any co-conspirators or other threats

Weissmann emphasizes that a thorough investigation would focus on understanding the shooter's motives and assessing any ongoing threat. Law enforcement is probing the shooter's life, from technology like phones and laptops to social connections and the procurement of weapons, ensuring that no other threats persist or co-conspirators are at large.

Identifying any red flags or intel that law enforcement may have missed can help improve prevention of similar attacks in the future

Part of the ongoing investigation is to uncover any overlooked red flags or intelligence that could have predicted the attack, allowing for the refinement of prevention strategies for similar incidents in the future.

Heightened security and threat awareness for potential targets like judges, prosecutors, and political figures is a major focus for law enforcement going forward

There are concerns about copycat attacks or retaliation, so hardening security and monitoring potent ...

Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, raising significant questions about the broader implications for the Department of Justice and counterarguments to claims of weaponization.

Judge Cannon ruled that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution

She determined that there is no statute that explicitly grants the Attorney General the authority to appoint a special counsel like Jack Smith

The Appointments Clause states that the President should appoint certain officers with the Senate's advice and consent, but Congress can allow for the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments. Judge Cannon, in a 93-page opinion, asserted that there's no explicit statute authorizing the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel like Jack Smith, challenging past practices and raising questions on the Attorney General's authority. She considers a special counsel potentially an inferior officer but ruled that without explicit statutory authorization for the appointment by the Attorney General, it’s unconstitutional.

Cannon rejected the precedent of past courts upholding the constitutionality of special counsel appointments, calling their statements "dicta"

Andrew Weissmann criticized Judge Cannon's ruling, suggesting she misinterpreted the status of a special counsel, who falls under the category of a confidential employee and should be considered effectively tethered to the Department of Justice. Cannon is the first judge to find that the special counsel’s appointment was unconstitutional and did not follow what Weissmann considers binding Supreme Court precedent. Weissmann and Mary McCord express that Judge Cannon’s decision ignores the reality of the Department of Justice’s historical practices and the broader authority it possesses.

Cannon's ruling fundamentally contradicts the claims of weaponization and political motivation behind the special counsel investigation

Rather than finding the investigation to be improperly politically motivated, Cannon ruled it was not sufficiently tethered to the Department of Justice and the President

Weissmann refers to Judge Cannon’s ruling as the actual antithesis of weaponization because she didn’t find the special counsel’s investigation to be improperly politically motivated. Instead, she ruled that Jack Smith was not sufficiently under the control of the Biden administration, thus the appointment is unconstitutional, undercutting Donald Trump's rhetoric about the investigation being a partisan "witch hunt."

This undercuts the rhetoric from Trump and his allies about the investigation being a partisan "witch hunt"

Weissmann emphasized that Cannon did not dismiss the investigation for being politically weaponized. Instead, she based her decision on the appointment not being sufficiently tied to the Attorney General or the President, challenging Trump’s assertions of politicization.

The ruling raises significant questions about t ...

The special counsel's office, led by Jack Smith, is contemplating its options in response to a ruling by Judge Cannon. Andrew Weissmann proposes potential strategies that could shape the trajectory of their legal approach.

The special counsel's office has several potential paths forward in responding to the ruling

They could appeal the decision, either through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or by seeking direct Supreme Court review

While specific tactics relating to an appeal are not laid out in the conversation, Weissmann's mention of Chief Justice John Roberts' past involvement in special counsel rules might hint at an evaluation of how the Supreme Court could receive such an appeal.

They could work with a U.S. Attorney's office to bring a new indictment, potentially avoiding the Appointments Clause issue

The discussion does not detail this option, but working with a U.S. Attorney's office could provide a strategic path that skirts the Appointments Clause issue raised by the ruling.

They could seek to have Judge Cannon removed from the case or challenge her ability to preside over it impartially

This potential step is not explored in the given content, leaving the idea of challenging Judge Cannon's role in the case an unspecified avenue worth consideration.

Appealing the decision has risks, as the current Supreme Court may be inclined to side with Cannon's reasoning

The possibility of appealing comes with inherent risks, particularly given the current composition of the Supreme Court and any perceived inclinations to support Judge Cannon's reasoning.

However, not appealing risks setting a dangerous precedent that could undermine the authority of special counsels and federal prosecutors more broadly

The d ...