Emil Bove, Donald Trump's attorney, reportedly received a "rough reception" from U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon when he argued that special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of theformer president was illegal.
But he also directed her ire at a member of Smith's team.
At a hearing in Florida on Monday, Bove argued that Congress had not authorized Smith's funding.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
"Judge Cannon gave Trump's prosecutors a rough reception at today's hearing on the special counsel's funding, even doing an on-the-spot line item review of their recent disclosures," MSNBC contributor Adam Klasfeld wrote during a break in Monday's hearing.
MSNBC host and attorney Katie Phang provided additional details about Cannon's exchange with Bove.
"SCO (Special Counsel's Office) should not have access to the 'permanent, indefinite appropriations' on which it is currently relying as a funding source," Bove said, according to Phang's summary. "The SCO was not properly established by 'other law.'"
Phang noted that Trump's defense had used similar language during a hearing on Friday.
Cannon wondered what "cognizable injury" could result from Smith's access to funding.
"The imminent threat of liberty restraint to Donald Trump resulting from the continuing prosecution or a conviction," Bove replied, according to Phang.
"The government contradicted itself between its arguments Friday and today, saying on Friday that the prosecution emphasized the regulations to which the special counsel is subject to minimize its independence, while today saying that the special counsel needs to argue for its independence to qualify for the permanent, indefinite appropriations," Trump's attorney asserted.
Cannon responded by calling out Bove.
"You've argued that the Special Counsel is taking inconsistent opinions, but aren't you doing the same thing, just flip-flopped?" the judge asked.
Bove answered: "The defense's main argument is the 'other law,' meaning there is no such other law authorizing the special counsel to be appointed, and the issue of the lack of sufficient oversight/the special counsel's independence is an alternative argument."
Cannon then posed questions to James Pearce, who argued on behalf of the special counsel's office.
Pearce provided other examples of other "limitless appropriations."
"Cannon then started to ask Pearce about the Special Counsel's website that showed the latest expenditure report," Phang wrote. "She even drilled down on specific line items, including the total amount of expenditures for November 2022-March 2023."
ALSO READ: High on politics? Feds press Green Party presidential candidate on payment to weed church
"I understand, but your Honor, there is no case where any court has suggested that the total amount of expenditures is relevant," Pearce reportedly said.
"But when it's limitless, there is a separation of powers concern," Cannon insisted.
"In fact the caselaw says only to focus on the source [of funding] and the purpose [of the funding]," Pearce responded, Phang said.
"Don't interrupt me," Cannon demanded before wondering what would happen if she ordered Smith not to use the funding.
"The DOJ has over a billion dollars that can be used as appropriations to fund the Special Counsel's Office," Pearce noted. "I can represent that there is the full commitment of the DOJ to fund the Special Counsel in this prosecution."
In a brief rebuttal, Trump's attorney complained about a potential gag order that the Cannon was expected to consider later in the day.
"And this gag order motion this afternoon," Bove said. "They want to gag Trump on the campaign trail and before a presidential debate. Did the AG authorize the filing of this motion?"
After that, Cannon ordered a recess until 3 p.m.
