Sightful Invest
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Stock
Top Posts
Trump considers tax hike on Americans making $2.5...
GOP senators: Congress should vote on Trump’s potential...
White House highlights over $2B in savings from...
GOP talk on millionaire tax hike ‘makes no...
Trump’s first vice president urges his old boss...
Department of Justice opens criminal investigation into NY...
Trump claims ‘I don’t know her’ and ‘listened...
Rubio just got an additional job in Trump’s...
OpenAI’s Sam Altman thanks Sen John Fetterman for...
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter dead at...
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Stock

Sightful Invest

Politics

Trump lawyers move to dismiss Jack Smith 2020 election charges, claim he was unlawfully appointed

by admin October 25, 2024
October 25, 2024
Trump lawyers move to dismiss Jack Smith 2020 election charges, claim he was unlawfully appointed

Lawyers for former President Trump filed a motion on Thursday to dismiss charges related to the 2020 election brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith, claiming he was unlawfully appointed, Fox News Digital has learned. 

Trump lawyers were successful in arguing that Smith was unlawfully appointed in his separate case against the former president related to classified records. 

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Aileen Cannon in July granted Trump’s request to dismiss the classified records charges, to which he pleaded not guilty, due to the ‘unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith.’ 

Trump attorneys on Thursday filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Tanya Chutkan is presiding over the case.

‘President Donald J. Trump respectfully requests leave to file this proposed motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment and for injunctive relief—which is timely and, alternatively, supported by good cause—based on violations of the Constitution’s Appointments and Appropriations Clauses,’ the filing states. 

The Appointments Clause says, ‘Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.’ Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate.

‘The proposed motion establishes that this unjust case was dead on arrival— unconstitutional even before its inception,’ the Trump filing states.

Trump lawyers argued that in November 2022, Attorney General Merick Garland ‘violated the Appointments Clause by naming private-citizen Smith to target President Trump, while President Trump was campaigning to take back the Oval Office from the Attorney General’s boss, without a statutory basis for doing so.’ 

‘Garland did so following improper public urging from President Biden to target President Trump, as reported at the time in 2022, and repeated recently by President Biden through his inappropriate instruction to ‘lock him up’ while Smith presses forward with the case unlawfully as the Presidential election rapidly approaches,’ the filing states. 

Trump lawyers were referring to comments made by President Biden this week, in which he said: ‘we got to lock him up,’ Biden said of Trump. However, the president quickly added, ‘Politically lock him up, lock him out. That’s what we have to do.’ 

But Trump lawyers argued that ‘everything that Smith did since Attorney General Garland’s appointment, as President Trump continued his leading campaign against President Biden and then Vice President Harris, was unlawful and unconstitutional.’ 

Trump attorneys argued that Smith violated the Appropriations Clause, saying he relied on an appropriation ‘that does not apply in order to take more than $20 million from taxpayers—in addition to Smith improperly relying on more than $16 million in additional funds from other unspecified ‘DOJ components’—for use in wrongfully targeting President Trump and his allies during the height of the campaign season.’ 

Trump attorneys argue that Smith ‘was not appointed ‘by Law,” and argue that he ‘has operated with a blank check by relying on an inapplicable permanent indefinite appropriation that was enacted in connection with a reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act in 1987.’ 

‘Smith was not appointed pursuant to that Act, which expired in 1999. The appropriation contemplates the possibility of appointment by some ‘other law,’ but no ‘other law’ authorized Smith’s appointment,’ the attorneys continue. ‘The appropriation also requires that the prosecutor be ‘independent,’ in the very particular, rigorous sense that attorneys appointed pursuant to the defunct Independent Counsel Act were meant to be independent.’ 

They added: ‘That is not true of Smith’s appointment, either.’ 

‘For these reasons, Smith should have never been permitted to access these huge sums of money, and his use of this funding violated the Appropriations Clause,’ the filing states. ‘Based on these violations of the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, the Superseding Indictment should be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, an injunction against additional spending by Smith is necessary to prevent ongoing irreparable harm and to ensure complete relief for the Appropriations Clause violation.’ 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges. 

A spokesperson for Special Counsel Jack Smith declined to comment when reached by Fox News. 

Smith has until Halloween, Oct. 31, to file his response.

The Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that a president is immune from prosecution for official acts. 

Smith was then required to file another indictment against Trump, revising the charges in an effort to navigate the Supreme Court ruling. The new indictment kept the prior criminal charges but narrowed and reframed the allegations against Trump after the high court’s ruling that gave broad immunity to former presidents. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in the new indictment as well. 

Trump, in an interview this week with Hugh Hewitt, said he would immediately fire Smith if elected. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

previous post
‘Ideological balance’: Supreme Court’s conservative majority to stay no matter who wins election, experts say
next post
Harris entertains Supreme Court-packing question during town hall, supports ‘some kind of reform’

You may also like

Trump blasts Biden’s DOJ: They tried to turn...

March 15, 2025

Expert dismisses Russian commander’s ‘highly unlikely’ claim about...

August 17, 2024

On Trump calling Harris ‘comrade,’ top Democrat surrogates...

August 23, 2024

DNI Gabbard refers intel officials to DOJ for...

April 24, 2025

‘America first’ vs. ‘America last’: What does Trump’s...

December 20, 2024

Trump energy plan will avoid Europe’s energy disaster

January 8, 2025

How USAID went woke and destroyed itself

February 7, 2025

Trump attorney general nominee Pam Bondi to testify...

January 15, 2025

AOC launches series of explosive Instagram rants on...

January 20, 2025

House passes funding bill with just hours until...

December 21, 2024

Recent Posts

  • Trump considers tax hike on Americans making $2.5 million or more per year
  • GOP senators: Congress should vote on Trump’s potential Iran nuclear deal
  • White House highlights over $2B in savings from DEI cuts during Trump administration’s first 100 days
  • GOP talk on millionaire tax hike ‘makes no sense,’ Trump White House alum says
  • Trump’s first vice president urges his old boss against raising taxes on wealthy Americans

    Become a VIP member by signing up for our newsletter. Enjoy exclusive content, early access to sales, and special offers just for you! As a VIP, you'll receive personalized updates, loyalty rewards, and invitations to private events. Elevate your experience and join our exclusive community today!


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Categories

    • Business (712)
    • Investing (2,058)
    • Politics (2,553)
    • Stock (4)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: sightfulinvest.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2024 Sightful Invest. All Rights Reserved.