Trump’s lawyers claim that the Special Counsel’s indictment unfairly criminalizes speech as an act of vengeance.
Attorneys filed a series of motions on Oct. 23 to dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unprecedented case against former President Donald Trump, which could potentially result in a 35-year prison sentence. These new motions, filed late Monday night, argue for the dismissal of the case on both statutory and constitutional grounds. They also claim that the prosecution is ”selective and vindictive,” pointing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s personal animosity towards Trump and his supporters. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, has refused to recuse herself from the case despite her public expressions of bias.
The motions set the stage for a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. The constitutional motion argues that Smith’s entire case against Trump is based on prosecuting his speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. It asserts that Trump’s advocacy regarding perceived fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election should not be criminalized. The motion also highlights Chutkan’s characterization of Trump’s claims as “conspiracy theories.”
The August indictment by Smith accuses Trump of criminal conspiracies and obstructions related to his disputes about the 2020 election’s reliability.
The constitutional dismissal motion argues that Trump cannot be retried for the same conduct that the United States Senate previously acquitted him of. It also asserts that Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy could be criminalized, given the tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding election fraud. The motion cites Supreme Court cases affirming the right to free speech, even when statements are false.
Another motion seeks to protect Trump’s rights in a case that may involve a Washington, DC jury pool heavily biased against him. It requests the removal of “inflammatory allegations” from Smith’s indictment, as they are not relevant and could prejudice the jury.
Do Voters Decide Political Questions, Or Courts?
A footnote in the constitutional motion references The Federalist’s reporting on election interference, a Time article depicting leftists’ efforts to influence the 2020 election, and a CNN poll showing a significant percentage of Americans doubting the election’s legitimacy. The motion argues that criminalizing false beliefs is unconstitutional and would make powerful individuals the arbiters of truth. It emphasizes the importance of public debate on election fairness.
The motion concludes by highlighting the long history of fiercely contested elections in America and the precedent of challenging election results. It also mentions the disinformation campaign against Trump during his presidency and the assistance provided by the Democrat-run White House.
The current Democrat-run White House is actively suppressing information about these historical facts. A case regarding this issue is currently before the Supreme Court, which has temporarily allowed Democrats to continue interfering with elections by controlling the flow of information.
The constitutional motion argues that all the alleged acts charged in the indictment have a long historical precedent in American electoral history and have traditionally been decided in the political arena. Trump’s lawyers contend that he is the first person to face criminal charges for disputing the outcome of an election and that the language of the statutes used against him is being stretched beyond recognition by the Special Prosecutor.
‘Selective and Vindictive Prosecution’
A third motion filed on Monday night argues for the dismissal of the case based on “selective and vindictive prosecution.” It highlights President Joe Biden’s pressure on the Department of Justice to prosecute his political opponent in both the previous and upcoming elections. The motion cites reports that senior DOJ officials initially rejected pursuing legal action against Trump. It also mentions Biden’s public statements expressing his objective to use the criminal justice system against Trump.
Trump’s lawyers argue that the case is a retaliatory response to his decisions as Commander In Chief, his exercise of constitutional rights, and his candidacy for political office. They point out that Chutkan has already imposed a gag order on Trump, prohibiting him from criticizing the DOJ or engaging in certain speech. Violating this order could result in fines, home detention, or jail time for Trump.
The motion concludes by urging Chutkan to dismiss the indictment or, at the very least, hold a hearing to examine further evidence of the prosecution’s vindictiveness towards Trump.
rnrn
What are the main arguments put forth in the motions to dismiss the case against former President Trump?
Attorneys File Motions to Dismiss Case Against Former President Trump
Attorneys have recently filed a series of motions, on October 23rd, seeking to dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unprecedented case against former President Donald Trump. The case, if successful, could potentially result in a 35-year prison sentence for Trump. These new motions, which were filed late on Monday night, argue for the dismissal of the case on both statutory and constitutional grounds.
One of the main arguments put forth in these motions is that the prosecution is “selective and vindictive,” pointing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s personal animosity towards Trump and his supporters. Despite her public expressions of bias, Chutkan, an Obama appointee, has refused to recuse herself from the case.
The motions also set the stage for a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. The constitutional motion argues that the entire case against Trump is based on prosecuting his speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. It asserts that Trump’s advocacy regarding perceived fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election should not be criminalized. The motion also highlights Chutkan’s characterization of Trump’s claims as “conspiracy theories.”
The August indictment by Smith accuses Trump of criminal conspiracies and obstructions related to his disputes about the 2020 election’s reliability. However, the constitutional dismissal motion argues that Trump cannot be retried for the same conduct that the United States Senate previously acquitted him of. It also asserts that Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy could be criminalized, given the tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding election fraud. The motion cites Supreme Court cases affirming the right to free speech, even when statements are false.
Another motion seeks to protect Trump’s rights in a case that may involve a Washington,
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...