Former FBI informant Alexander Smirnov asked to have his federal charges dropped in light of the dismissal ruling against Jack Smith's classified documents case against Former President Donald Trump on Monday, according to his legal team. Smirnov is charged with lying to the FBI about his testimony against President Joe Biden and his family dealings in Ukraine and the corruption allegations that were raised after his testimony was made public. 

Smirnov and his legal team are now using the ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon which dismissed the case against Trump on procedural grounds. Judge Cannon found that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly or unlawfully appointed and therefore all proceedings and indictments that followed were unconstitutional. Weiss is leading investigations into Hunter Biden and other related matters that include possible involvement with his Father, President Joe Biden.

"The bottom line is this," she wrote. "The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers. The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, 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. He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout American history, see 28 U.S.C. § 541, or Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the Appointments Clause."

In their 21-page filing, Smirnov's attorneys argue or reference the Trump dismissal at least a dozen times. Specifically making mention of the argument that special prosecutors or counsels need to be appointed and funded in a certain way. 

“This present Indictment was brought by an unauthorized Special Counsel with funds that were not appropriated by Congress. The Court should thus dismiss the Indictment,” they wrote.

Experts are signaling that Smirnov and his legal team are on thin standing, as they compare the differences between Trump's case and his. However, in the same argument, they also validate the ruling for Trump. The argument for denying the dismissal of Smirnov's motion is that the case brought by Jack Smith against Trump was that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed without Congressional approval or oversight, being that Smith was neither an employee of the Department of Justice, nor was he a Senate-confirmed US attorney whereas Special Counsel David Weiss was both. 

Additionally, federal judges in California, Washington D.C., and Delaware have all recently issued similar rulings and rejected challenges that were brought against David Weiss and former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Smirnov is facing two felony charges of lying to the FBI relating to allegedly false testimony he gave to them regarding the Biden family.  

Editor’s Note: This article was updated post-publication for clarity.