Trump’s FINAL Brief: Jack Smith is ILLEGAL and MUST Be Removed

Jack Smith is an illegally-appointed prosecutor who is collecting improper financial appropriations, according to Trump’s final reply on the defense motion to dismiss the case in Florida.

In this report:

Donald Trump’s legal team has launched a vigorous offensive in the Florida classified documents case, targeting the legitimacy of prosecutor Jack Smith’s role. Their motion asserts that Smith’s appointment was neither constitutionally nor legally valid, as he was not appointed by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. Moreover, they challenge the legality of the funding for Smith’s activities, framing the entire prosecution as a flawed and politically motivated endeavor.

The Legal and Constitutional Quagmire

Trump’s attorneys argue that Smith, in wielding his prosecutorial powers, lacks the essential legal foundation and oversight, rendering his actions against Trump as illegitimate. The heart of their argument lies in the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which they assert mandates Senate confirmation for principal officers, a criterion Smith does not meet. This, they claim, is an undisputed point, even by Smith’s team, signaling a critical flaw in the appointment process.

Dissecting the Prosecution’s Narrative

The defense delves into the prosecutorial narrative, pointing out inconsistencies and challenging the legal basis cited by Smith’s office. They assert that the actions forming the crux of the indictment occurred during Trump’s presidency, thus meriting consideration under presidential immunity. This stance is part of a broader critique of the legal strategies employed against Trump, suggesting a misuse of the legal system for political ends.

Political Undertones and Judicial Misuse

The proceedings are depicted by Trump’s legal team as a segment of a broader political strategy aimed at undermining him. They depict a scenario where the legal system is manipulated, diverging from established legal standards to serve political objectives, particularly with the upcoming elections in sight.

Funding Controversies and Legal Overreach

Further scrutiny is directed at the DOJ for its role in financing Smith’s investigation, with critics labeling it as a baseless witch hunt. The defense contrasts this with past instances where the DOJ faced budgetary constraints, underscoring the anomaly of unrestricted funding in Smith’s case. They argue this represents a stark deviation from historical legal safeguards intended to ensure substantive fairness.

The Implications of Unchecked Power

Trump’s defense underscores the danger of Smith’s unbridled prosecutorial power, positing it as a breach of constitutional norms. This, they argue, not only taints the judicial process but also politicizes it, potentially skewing the legal landscape against Trump.

The Shadow of Political Retribution

Amidst the legal tussle, voices like John Bolton hint at potential retribution should Trump regain power, reflecting the high stakes and charged atmosphere surrounding the case. This discourse extends beyond the courtroom, permeating political dialogues and public debates about the nature and direction of Trump’s legal challenges.

Conclusion: A Crucial Legal Battle

Trump’s final reply in his motion to dismiss the case against him hinges on challenging the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment and actions. This legal confrontation not only questions the charges against Trump but also delves into the nuances of presidential powers, the process of legal appointments, and the interplay between law and politics. As this legal drama unfolds, it serves as a litmus test for the judiciary’s response and its broader implications for American democracy and the political arena.

Trump Reply to Jack Smith’s Unlawful Appointment Florida Classified Docs Case by Robert Gouveia on Scribd