{"id":1498578,"date":"2024-10-25T19:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-10-25T23:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1498578"},"modified":"2024-10-25T19:00:00","modified_gmt":"2024-10-25T23:00:00","slug":"trumps-attorneys-seek-election-case-dismissal-say-special-council-appointment-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/trumps-attorneys-seek-election-case-dismissal-say-special-council-appointment-unconstitutional\/1498578\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump’s Attorneys Seek Election Case Dismissal, Say Special Council Appointment Unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

Trump’s Attorneys Seek Election Case Dismissal, Say Special Council Appointment Unconstitutional<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Former President Donald Trump\u2019s attorneys argued in a new filing on Oct. 24 that Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s superseding indictment should be dismissed since his appointment was unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

\u201cEverything that Smith did since Attorney General [Merrick] Garland\u2019s appointment, as President Trump continued his leading campaign against President Biden and then Vice President Harris, was unlawful and unconstitutional,\u201d<\/strong><\/em> Trump\u2019s attorneys said in a filing to D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing his election interference case.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat includes Smith\u2019s separate violation of the Appropriations Clause by relying on an appropriation that does not apply in order to take more than $20 million from taxpayers,\u201d <\/strong><\/em>the filing added<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The filing was a motion requesting that Chutkan allow Trump to submit another motion to dismiss based on the legality of Smith\u2019s appointment. Trump is seeking not only dismissal of the superseding indictment but also an injunction preventing Smith from \u201cspending additional public funds\u201d while violating the Constitution.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s the latest attempt by Trump to obtain rulings that would severely weaken or end Smith\u2019s prosecution, which restarted after months of delay as the Supreme Court weighed Trump\u2019s appeal on presidential immunity.<\/p>\n

Trump is seeking to dismiss the case based on the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that presidents have some immunity, as well as based on its decision from June in Fischer v. United States, which narrowed Smith\u2019s application of an obstruction statute used against Jan. 6 defendants.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s latest filing echoes arguments from Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed Smith\u2019s classified documents case against Trump in the state. Both Trump and Cannon also cited Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose concurring opinion in the immunity decision raised doubts about the legitimacy of Smith\u2019s appointment.<\/p>\n

That case is headed towards the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit where Smith is seeking<\/a> an appeal of Cannon\u2019s decision. If the 11th Circuit and Chutkan return differing opinions on this issue, it could prompt the type of circuit split that reaches the Supreme Court.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chutkan has already indicated that she would reject the type of arguments that Cannon used in dismissing the classified documents case. During a status conference on Sept. 5, she said that she didn\u2019t find Cannon\u2019s opinion \u201cparticularly persuasive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cannon\u2019s ruling conflicted with a 2019 judgment by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld former special counsel Robert Mueller\u2019s appointment. That 2019 decision wasn\u2019t binding for Chutkan, Trump\u2019s attorneys argued, because it was decided before the Supreme Court issued multiple decisions attempting to rein in agency power through a principle called the \u201cmajor questions doctrine.\u201d<\/p>\n

That doctrine, which the Supreme Court applied in its decision striking down President Joe Biden\u2019s student loan forgiveness, holds that laws should not be interpreted as allowing agencies to decide major questions unless explicitly stated by the text.<\/p>\n

Because Congress didn\u2019t provide a clear statement authorizing the appointment of special counsels like Smith, Trump\u2019s attorneys said, his appointment was illegal.<\/p>\n

Smith told<\/a> the 11th Circuit that Cannon\u2019s decision \u201cneedlessly casts doubt on longstanding practices in the Department of Justice and across the Executive Branch.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

He disputed Cannon\u2019s ruling on statutory grounds but also took issue with her interpretation of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in U.S. v. Nixon. That case centered on former President Richard Nixon\u2019s attempt to resist a subpoena from special prosecutor Leon Jaworski.<\/p>\n

In that case, the court\u2019s majority defended the special prosecutor\u2019s appointment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cUnder the authority of Art. II, \u00a7 2, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government … It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties,\u201d the 1974 majority opinion<\/a>, authored by Chief Justice Warren Burger, read.<\/em><\/p>\n

Cannon said in July that the court\u2019s wording was dictum, or nonbinding, on future court decisions. Trump\u2019s attorneys agreed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nFri, 10\/25\/2024 – 15:00<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bhttps:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/political\/trumps-attorneys-seek-election-case-dismissal-say-special-council-appointment<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Trump’s Attorneys Seek Election Case Dismissal, Say Special Council Appointment Unconstitutional Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times, Former President Donald Trump\u2019s attorneys argued…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":1498579,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1498578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbimBl-6hQC","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2024\/10\/image20-202024-10-25T084107.227-QvGeeF.jpeg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1498578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1498578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1498578\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1498579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1498578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1498578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1498578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}