Attorneys representing President Donald Trump are arguing that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case must be dismissed.
They made the argument in several different motions that they filed with the court this week.
Each of the motions is an independent ground for dismissal.
This is all part of the case that Smith brought against Trump in Florida.
Smith argued that the 45th president illegally mishandled classified documents when he left the White House.
He also accuses Trump of trying to obstruct his investigation of the matter, according to Breitbart.
Trump has pled “not guilty,” and he has maintained that Smith is politically motivated.
It is widely regarded that Smith is essentially running “election interference” for Democrat President Joe Biden, considering that he is likely to square off with Trump, once again, in the upcoming general election.
Among other things, Trump’s legal team is arguing that Smith was unlawfully appointed to his special counsel role by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.
“The Appointments Clause does not permit the Attorney General to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
“As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action.”
The attorneys went on to insist that this “is a serious problem for the rule of law.”
In addition to this, Trump’s legal team is also arguing that there is no statute that allows for the establishment of Smith’s Office of Special Counsel.
This is another reason why Trump’s lawyers claim that Smith’s prosecution of Trump is unlawful.
Trump’s lawyers are also arguing that Biden’s use of Smith to prosecute his political opponent is a violation of the Appropriations Clause.
“President Biden’s DOJ is paying for this politically motivated prosecution of Biden’s chief political rival ‘off the books,’ without accountability or authorization,” Trump’s team writes.
They continued, “Rather than funding the Special Counsel’s Office through the ordinary budget process, Jack Smith is drawing on a permanent indefinite appropriation that, by its terms and under the Reno Regulations, is not available to Special Counsel.
“Thus, Smith’s funding violates the Appropriations Clause.”
These are just some of the many motions that Trump’s lawyers filed this past week.
Not all of them have been made public.
The judge, at the time of this writing, has yet to rule on any of the motions.
Currently, the trial is set to begin towards the end of May.
