Trump’s Lawyers Submitted a Motion to Dismiss Jack Smith

Former President Donald Trump is campaigning to become President of the United States again, but his lawyers have not stopped working on the case against him.

Lawyers for the former president filed a motion Thursday to remove Special Prosecutor Jack Smith from the case related to the 2020 presidential election, saying he was not legally appointed, Fox News reported. reported.

This came after his lawyers successfully argued against the former president in another case involving secret documents that he was unlawfully appointed.

“U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Aileen Cannon in July granted Trump’s request to dismiss the secret recording charges, on which he pleaded not guilty, because of the ‘illegal appointment and financing of Special Counsel Jack Smith,'” Fox News reported. the report said.

Lawyers filed a similar objection this week in this case, presided over by Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Advertising

“President Donald J. Trump respectfully requests permission to file this proposed motion – supported by good cause in a timely and alternative manner – to dismiss the superseding indictment and for injunctive relief, based on violations of the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses of the Constitution,” the attorneys wrote. in question.

The article states that Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, Justices of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States shall be appointed by the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, but Congress may authorize the appointment of subordinate officers. Only the President, Courts or Heads of Chambers.”

However, Special Counsel Smith was never confirmed by the Senate.

“The proposed motion establishes that this unjust cause is dead on arrival, unconstitutional even before its inception,” the attorneys said.

It alleges that Attorney General Merrick Garland “violated the Appointments Clause by naming private citizen Smith to target President Trump, while President Trump campaigned without legal basis to retake the Oval Office from the Attorney General’s boss.” They drove.

“Garland did this following the improper public call for President Biden to target President Trump, as reported in 2022, and more recently the improper instruction by President Biden to ‘lock him up’ while Smith unlawfully advanced the case.” repeated. “The presidential election is fast approaching,” he said.

“Since Attorney General Garland’s appointment, everything Smith did as he continued his pioneering campaign against President Trump, President Biden, and then Vice President Harris was illegal and unconstitutional,” the former president’s lawyers said.

And they argued that Smith himself violated the Appropriations Clause because he relied on “an unqualified appropriation to receive more than $20 million from taxpayers,” in addition to improperly relying on more than $16 million in additional funds from other unspecified sources. they said. ‘DOJ constituents’ – to unfairly target President Trump and his allies during the height of campaign season.”

The attorneys said the private attorney was “not appointed by law” and “acted with a blank check, relying on an unenforceable, permanent, and indefinite grant enacted in connection with the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act of 1987.” .”

“Smith was not appointed under this Act, which expired in 1999. The appropriation provides for the possibility of his appointment under ‘another law’, but no ‘other law’ permits Smith’s appointment,” they said. “The allowance also requires the prosecutor to be “independent,” specifically in the strict sense that lawyers appointed under the repealed Independent Lawyers Act must be independent.”

“This also does not apply to Smith’s appointment,” the attorneys said.

“For these reasons, Smith should never have been allowed access to this large sum of money, and his use of these funds violated the Appropriations Clause,” they said. “Based on these violations of the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, the quashed indictment must be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Smith must seek an injunction against additional expenses to prevent continued irreparable harm and to ensure that the Appropriations Clause violation is completely eliminated.”