judge eileene cannon in Florida has thrown out Trump's document case does this mean Jack Smith's entire investigation is over so I want to talk about like how she challenged this ruling and basically why she even got to dismiss the case so the the indictment which we've read through on this channel is pretty open and shut on the legal question of the classified document stuff it's actually very obvious there's blatant obstruction of justice there's BL knowledge of having the classified materials and then blatant lying about giving them back or hiding them it's very obvious so Trump's only defense was to attack the statutory authority of Jack Smith's appointment and so where does this come from what is he talking about well judge gar uh attorney general Garland in order to keep some type of Aura of nonpartisanship and keep himself out of the political Zeitgeist and make it not seem like a political Witch Hunt whatever Trump likes to call it he appointed a special Council and it's like an independent investigator that doesn't have to report to Garland in most cases he has a lot of Independence on how he goes about handling the case and he hires this guy named Jack Smith Jack Smith is a very accomplished individual he's done a lot of Tours and a bunch of things but he's never been directly responsible to Congress which is important we have to talk about that yeah so the doj normally under um part 28 CFR part 600 that is where they are able to have the authority of appointing a special counsel um and in the past this has never really been an issue but Canon for the first time says actually you're not allowed to appoint a special counsel unless it meets my explicit requirements and do you know what those requirements are have you heard about this I've heard about the requirement that like they need to be selected by Congress or ratified by Congress or something like it yes but yes so she's saying Jack Smith never got appointed an appointment vote by the Senate yeah and because he's never gotten an appointment vote by the Senate he can't be put in that position now what makes this dicey is during the Trump Administration there were plenty of special councils that did not get explicit Senate appointments for this so Durham uh district attorney Durham or whatever what was his name District not District attor I think I think he was Durham I think it was Durham as well I yeah I think he was a district attorney but anyway the they appointed Durham to investigate the Hillary Clinton stuff and Durham didn't receive a senate appointment vote to special counsel um neither did Robert her who was the special counsel appointed by attorney general Garland to go after to to investigate Biden's handling of classified documents neither of these people received Senate confirmation for becoming a special counsel but they did receive Senate appointment votes for previous positions they've held and so Canon is saying listen at least these guys got Senate appointments once in their life for something else that seems really weak to me which seems really weak dude yeah that's weak that is some weak sauce that is weak sauce that is so that's where this comes from yeah and so now it throws the Jack Smith case all into a fuzzy do you think his case survives this before I answer that I want to bring up one more piece of evidence that there's an article in the New York Times that came out as well as some other sources that show that the the precedent of higher courts as far as the appointment of special counsel have approved people that have been appointed without Congressional like ratification oh my God many times in the past this says other special prosecutors have been appointed from outside the government including yon jorski in the Watergate scandal Lawrence Walsh in the Iran Contra affair and Robert Mueller theii in the inquiry into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia courts nevertheless consistently said their appointments were lawful so Canon has had to argue against the basically the appointment of all of these former special prosecutors right so I'm not sure exactly what the wording of your question was but I think on appeal you're going to say that this is safe that is if Donald Trump isn't President already and finds a way to dismiss this right cuz if Trump becomes president he just pardons himself and it's over exactly um which is so scary that we say that so normally like oh yeah no our president our our our leading presidential candidate is getting investigated for a crime and yes he has said that if he wins he will pardon himself of all those things and we're just like oh normal oh normal regular political discourse let's go on CNN and debate the topics yeah you know it's insanity and it's I I hate treating it like it's normal I guess but I feel like we're kind of forced to treat it as normal because this is the leading presidential candidate exactly so like it it the truth is it doesn't matter right because everybody knows that he has these cases and he still has the majority of support and polls and people just don't care