Cannon and shadow government
(Photo : U.S. Department of Justice via Getty Images)
Boxes of classified documents are seen in the ballroom of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Florida in a handout photo by the Department of Justice. Trump's lawyers are challenging the legality of special prosecutor Jack Smith's appointment in a bid to have the case dismissed.

The federal judge presiding over Donald Trump's classified documents case said that "sounds very ominous" when the former president's lawyers argued that the special prosecutor was illegally appointed and part of a "shadow government," according to reports. 

Judge Aileen Cannon appeared skeptical of Trump's lawyers claims during a Friday hearing in which she heard arguments from both sides about whether Attorney General Merrick Garland's naming Jack Smith as special prosecutor was lawful because he wasn't confirmed by the Senate.

It was the first of three days of hearings on the matter raised by Trump's defense team among other challenges in an attempt to have the charges tossed.

Trump lawyer Emil Bove argued Friday that the Justice Department's naming of Smith creates a "shadow government." 

"That sounds very ominous," Cannon replied to Bove, CNN reported. "But what do you really mean?"

Bove sidestepped the question and reiterated the defense team's claim that Smith is acting like a rogue prosecutor and that Cannon should hold another hearing to look into the relationship between him and Garland.

Attorneys for the special prosecutor said Smith's appointment "complied with all of the department's policies."

Cannon, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump at the end of his administration in 2020, has come under criticism for slow-rolling the case involving Trump's handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida. 

The case had been scheduled to go to trial last month but was indefinitely postponed by Cannon among a number of delayed rulings as she weighs an assortment of legal issues, which makes it unlikely it will be heard before this November's presidential election. 

The New York Times reported on Thursday that two federal judges in Florida urged Cannon to pass on the case when she drew the assignment in June 2023 and allow another judge to take it up.  

Cannon refused their appeal, the report said.