(NewsInsights.org) – Attorneys for former President Donald Trump filed four separate motions on Thursday, February 22, to dismiss US v Trump, the classified documents case which Judge Aileen Cannon presides over in the Southern Florida US District court. The motions cite presidential immunity, unconstitutional vagueness, Jack Smith’s unlawful appointment and funding as special counsel, and the Presidential Records Act as reasons Cannon should dismiss the case outright.
Attorneys Christopher Kise and Todd Blanche entered a motion claiming presidential immunity, mostly ignoring the 57-page February 6 DC Appellate Court decision upholding an earlier DC US District Court decision that held that executive immunity “no longer protects” Trump from criminal prosecution except to note they were seeking “further review” of what they deemed a “non-binding, poorly reasoned” decision.
Instead, Trump’s legal team pushed forward with renewed arguments about how the constitutional separation of powers talked about in Article II precluded the courts from judging the president in the execution of his official duties. The attorneys argue that White House aides packed and transported the documents in question while Trump was still the acting president.
The second motion argued that the charges leveled against Trump were unconstitutionally vague. The attorneys claim that phrases like “unauthorized possession,” “relating to national defense,” “entitled to receive,” and “willfully” are poorly defined by their nature. For instance, they argued that the former president maintained the necessary security clearances qualifying him to possess the documents until at least the second superseding indictment.
The third motion claimed that Attorney General Merrick Garland had no constitutional grounds or ability to appoint or fund the office of Special Counsel. The legal team contended that Merrick unlawfully appointed and funded Jack Smith, violating the Appropriations Act. They claimed the illegal appointment invalidated all indictments he sought, thus justifying their request for dismissal.
Finally, Kise and Blanche claimed the Presidential Records Act protected their client from prosecution for maintaining documents he considered a personal part of his own archive. Once again, they argued that the principle of separation of powers also protected Trump’s archives from review. While the act does specify that the National Archives and Record Administration should act as an archivist, the lawyers claimed the law doesn’t require the agency to possess documents physically. They also claim the law never provided for criminal penalties.
Special Counsel Jack Smith and the prosecution have until March 7 to respond to the new motions, after which Judge Cannon will issue her decisions.
Copyright 2024, NewsInsights.org
