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

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

Massie raised concerns about the constitutionality of appointing a special counsel without authorization from Congress. 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 Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

In the brief, it states that Smith, lacking the authority of the federal government, is akin to a “naked emperor.” The brief further argues that Smith, being improperly appointed, has no more authority to represent the United States in court than public figures like Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.

Meese contended that the “illegality” of Smith’s appointment should be enough to invalidate his role and urged the court to deny any review. The brief also highlighted that Smith was appointed to investigate potential violations of the 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 effect for several decades and have been utilized by attorneys general from both major political parties. Garland asserted that the matter of a Justice Department employee serving as a special counsel has already been addressed through adjudication.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

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

However, Meese’s brief emphasized that none of the existing statutes, constitutional provisions, or other laws authorize the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen as a Special Counsel with extraordinary criminal law enforcement authority.

The significance of Meese’s brief was also acknowledged during Supreme Court oral arguments concerning Trump’s presidential immunity, with Justice Clarence Thomas citing it. The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision on this matter later this month.

Massie, echoing Meese’s arguments, contended that the creation of such an office would require an act of Congress. He further pointed out that even without an act of Congress, the Constitution stipulates that the President should nominate and the Senate should confirm individuals for such 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 wasn’t alone in the grilling of Merrick Garland. Matt Gaetz and Harriet Hageman also held his feet to the fire. Watch:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of RVM News. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.