This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

‘Investigators won’t have to explain why evidence is not in the same condition as it was after the Mar-a-Lago raid or why some of the alleged verboten documents are missing’

Misconduct and malfeasance were on the stage during Jack Smith's partisan prosecution of President Donald Trump over his possession of various documents from his presidency.

Smith accused Trump of a long list of charges for having the papers in his Mar-a-Lago home, which was targeted by a SWAT-style FBI raid to "recover" them, even though Trump's lawyers were working with federal officials to determine what documents Trump was entitled to keep from his time in office.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon this week dismissed the case entirely, pointing out that Smith never was appointed legally, so had no more authority to file charges against Trump than a man in the street.

Legal commentary Julie Kelly, an expert investigator who has documented the Department of Justice’s weaponization against Trump, said Cannon did Smith “and the entire Biden regime,” a favor with the ruling.

"Cannon's death-by-a-thousand-cuts dismantling of the case will finally stop Smith's bleeding," Kelly wrote. "Shocking revelations about the dirty, sloppy, corrupt, and dishonest nature of the investigation and prosecution will end, at least for now. Smith won't have to defend his baseless and petulant gag order seeking to prohibit Trump from publicly criticizing law enforcement agents involved in the case.

"FBI agents won't have to take the stand to defend the unprecedented raid of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 or admit they used classified cover sheets as props or how they violated the search warrant to unnecessarily ransack the bedroom of Melania Trump and Barron Trump.

"Investigators won't have to explain why evidence is not in the same condition as it was after the Mar-a-Lago raid or why some of the alleged verboten documents are missing," she explained.

"DOJ officials including deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco won't have to disclose her collaboration with the National Archives to concoct a documents crime against Donald Trump as early as mid-2021, long before anyone allegedly found 'classified' papers in the boxes the former president turned over to the archives.

"On that score, NARA officials including former archivist David Ferriero—an Obama appointee who called January 6 the worst day of his life—won't have to testify about why he started harassing and threatening Trump's transition team with legal action just a few months after Trump left office, something he had no authority to do and admitted he had never done before.

"Or why he and NARA general counsel Gary Stern visited the White House on at least a few occasions in 2021, months before the purported opening of the official criminal investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents, For now, a jury and the public won't see meeting notes and correspondence between NARA and top White House officials including Biden's general counsel and chief of staff."

Or maybe all of this will be appearing soon – in a courtroom and on the websites of responsible news publications.

That's because Smith claims he will be filing an appeal.

He insisted that he wanted a different outcome. "The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the attorney general is statutorily authorized to appoint a special counsel. The Justice Department has authorized the special counsel to appeal the court's order," a spokesman for Smith said.

Of course, the statement didn't point out that Cannon had, under the American judicial system, a right to conclude differently from other "courts."

Cannon's opinion, 93 pages in detail, has been described by commentators as "strongly reasoned."

Kelly explained Smith should thank Cannon for eliminating the case.

"Cannon just spared the special counsel and his team months of continued humiliation in her Florida courtroom and, eventually, in front of the nation," Kelly said.

Trump's lawyers had explained Smith's appointment violated both the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.

Smith claimed he was legitimate, although his backing came, Kelly said, only from "random" federal statutes, "none that specifically designates the appointment of a special counsel since the Independent Counsel Act expired in 1999."

Trump's opinion was endorsed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese and Michael Mukaseyj, and the dispute also was raised by Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court. He said for the prosecution of Trump to continue, the issue of the legitimacy of Smith's claims would have to be resolved.

He said the problem facing Smith is not a "trifling technicality."

Immediately after Cannon's ruling, leftists raged, claiming that Cannon should be removed from the case, and worse.

But Kelly explained Smith should have been thanking "his lucky stars, to the extent he has any, that the American people won't see his ineptitude up close in any trial in southern Florida."