On Thursday, lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a motion to dismiss charges related to the 2020 election brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Trump’s legal team argued that Smith’s appointment was unlawful, as he was appointed without Senate confirmation, which is typically required for such a position.
According to Fox News Digital, this motion echoes a similar case Trump’s team won, where they successfully argued Smith’s appointment was improper in the separate classified records case.
In that prior case, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida agreed to dismiss the charges.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty in that matter, received this dismissal because of what the judge described as the “unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
This latest motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Tanya Chutkan presides over the case.
The filing calls for the dismissal of the superseding indictment and seeks injunctive relief, stating that Trump’s arguments are timely and backed by substantial constitutional grounds.
Specifically, Trump’s lawyers claim that Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses of the Constitution.
The Appointments Clause mandates that specific officials, including ambassadors, judges, and other high-ranking officers, be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation unless Congress allows for a different process.
In Smith’s case, he was appointed without Senate confirmation. Trump’s filing contends that this case was “unconstitutional even before its inception.”
Trump’s attorneys claim that Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Appointments Clause by appointing Smith in November 2022 without legislative backing, during Trump’s campaign efforts.
The filing highlights that Garland acted under “improper public urging from President Biden,” referring to past and recent statements by Biden encouraging legal action against Trump.
This week, President Biden made a comment stating, “we got to lock him up,” referencing Trump. He quickly clarified that he meant politically, saying, “lock him out,” indicating that voters should oppose Trump in elections rather than a legal sense.
Nevertheless, Trump’s legal team argues that Smith’s ongoing efforts to prosecute Trump in an election season are unlawful and unconstitutional.
Trump’s lawyers further argue that Smith’s actions violate the Appropriations Clause by using taxpayer funds inappropriately.
They claim Smith accessed more than $20 million for his investigation without the proper authorization, relying on indefinite funds designated for other Department of Justice (DOJ) components.
According to the motion, these funds were not intended for Smith’s investigation and were misappropriated.
The filing insists that Smith “was not appointed ‘by Law’” and states that he operated with virtually unchecked financial access, relying on a permanent appropriation intended for a different type of investigation under the now-defunct Independent Counsel Act from 1987.
The Trump team maintains that these financial violations alone should disqualify Smith and prevent further use of DOJ funds for the case.
They conclude that due to these violations of both the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, the indictment against Trump should be dismissed with prejudice, preventing any further attempts to pursue these charges.
They also requested an injunction to restrict any additional funding toward the investigation, citing ongoing irreparable harm if the current funding practices continue.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges filed against him. In response to the motion, a spokesperson for Special Counsel Jack Smith declined to comment, as reported by Fox News. Smith is required to submit his response by October 31.
In the meantime, Smith had to modify the charges following a recent Supreme Court ruling that granted former presidents immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office.
Consequently, Smith filed a revised indictment, narrowing the charges to align with this ruling.
Trump once again pleaded not guilty to the revised charges. In a recent interview with Hugh Hewitt, Trump vowed that he would immediately fire Smith if re-elected.
