When U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump over the unconstitutional appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith, she angered many on the left, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.

In an interview this week, AG Garland took an unsubtle swipe at Judge Cannon in his criticism of that decision that was immediately appealed, Newsweek reported.

Garland appeared to question the experience and intelligence of the federal judge in South Florida compared to his own gained over several decades of service in the legal realm.

"Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law?"

In an interview Tuesday with NBC News, AG Garland was asked why he disagreed with Judge Cannon's ruling that the initial appointment of Special Counsel Smith by the attorney general, as well as his continued indefinite funding through the Justice Department, was illegal and unconstitutional.

"Look, as you well know, I picked this room for this interview. This is my favorite room in the Justice Department. It's a law library," Garland replied. "For more than 20 years, I was a federal judge. Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don't think so."

"Our position is that it's constitutional and valid. That's why we appealed," he continued. "I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel as was followed in the previous administration, Special Counsel [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller."

"In multiple special counsels over the decades, going back to Watergate and the special prosecutor in that case, until now every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment, has upheld it."

In an exclusive interview with @kendilanianNBC, Attorney General Merrick Garland took issue with Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the classified documents case against Former President Trump. pic.twitter.com/SckDMfFwzR

— NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt (@NBCNightlyNews) July 30, 2024

Garland's errors

Unfortunately for AG Garland, he does appear to be somebody who would make basic mistakes about the law, given at least two glaring errors in his rebuttal remarks to Judge Cannon's dismissal.

First, the comparison he drew with Special Counsels Durham and Mueller is inapt, as both of them had been previously confirmed by the Senate as U.S. attorneys -- a distinction that Special Counsel Smith does not share.

Garland also erroneously claimed that the Supreme Court had previously addressed the special counsel appointment matter, as revealed by Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the Trump v. United States presidential immunity decision, in which he raised valid questions about the legitimacy of Smith's appointment and funding.

As Thomas observed, the high court previously addressed the separate and distinct and now-defunct independent counsel authorized by a since-expired statute in Morrison v. Olsen and made only a "passing reference" without any analysis of the statutes authorizing a special prosecutor in United States v. Nixon.

Smith's appointment only legal if first confirmed by the Senate

The Associated Press reported in mid-July that Judge Cannon wrote in her ruling of Special Counsel Smith's unauthorized appointment, "The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers."

"If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so," she added, namely through a formal presidential appointment and confirmation by a majority of the Senate.