At the same time Trump's attorney's filed motions claiming Jack Smith is not legitimate because he was not confirmed. Both sides are going to have to flip their positions.
This is actually an interesting and necessary case to fight in court. I think a special counsel should have to be confirmed by the Senate. After all, he is independent and does not technically report to the AG. He is spending taxpayer money to investigate whatever he was appointed to investigate and that needs oversight. I also think these appointments should be few and far between. There was no reason for the AG to appoint Jack Smith for example. Trump was out of office and any federal prosecutor could have taken the case. Smith was appointed to be a partisan hack, but with the caveat that Garland could claim he was independent.
I actually do not want a Republican Jack Smith investigating Democrats unless there is a clear predicate for a criminal investigation. There was no clear causes for Smith to investigate Trump for the documents case. That should have been handled between the National Archives and Trump as it was in every other similar to that one. I also do not believe the other case against Trump needs an investigation. For one thing, there was no crime in the Jan 6 case. Trump's was clear when he said "peacefully and patriotically have your voices heard". The other case claiming he attempted to overturn the election because he took legal action to appoint alternate electors, which has been done multiple times before, was even less obvious. There were no crimes and the DOJ is the arbiter of such decisions.
Trump's job should be to return the DOJ to a neutral political stance.
Having said that, there is no reason Matt Gaetz could not do the job and no reason not to confirm him. Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were both highly partisan and got the job. Holder claimed to be Obama's "wingman". So I don't want to hear Democrats claim Gaetz would act as Trump's personal attorney.