Staff Reports
The battle lines have been drawn as President-elect Donald Trump’s legal team launched an emergency motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The aim? To stop former Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing an alleged report on Trump’s supposedly nefarious activities relating to documents. With a record like Smith’s, it’s no wonder Trump’s attorneys want to hit the brakes.
Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump and understands the nuts and bolts of legal proceedings better than most, already tossed out Smith’s prosecution last July. Her reasoning was simple: Smith’s appointment was as unconstitutional as a three-legged table, since he skipped the Senate confirmation and didn’t even hold the title of U.S. Attorney. Facing such a dead-on dismissal, Trump’s team is rightfully arguing that Smith’s so-called authority is as valid as a dollar bill marked “for novelty use only.”
MORE: Trump himself is asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to block Jack Smith form releasing a final report, claiming it would violate presidential transition laws and infringe on his constitutional immunity from criminal procedures. He wants Garland to let Bondi decide. pic.twitter.com/rAOuIWUkHy
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 7, 2025
This is not merely a battle for Trump, but also for his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira. Trump’s team contends that the former special counsel’s unhinged ambition to release a report could wreak havoc on the legal standing of everyone involved. The legal team argues that if Smith gets his way, it will be like putting up a neon sign proclaiming guilt before the case has even been settled — clearly not the way justice should operate.
What’s more, the report is being framed as a one-sided hit piece aimed at transforming the public perception of the defendants into something resembling public enemy number one. The tactical decision to release such a report at this stage reeks of political maneuvering, designed to sway public opinion rather than serving truth, justice, or any of the so-called pillars of our democracy. As if grand jury secrets weren’t already carefully guarded, Smith seems ready to flout that sanctity in his desperate bid for relevance.
In a sweet irony, the government hasn’t even bothered to seek a stay on the court’s previous rulings regarding Smith’s shaky appointment. Meanwhile, Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed Smith to air a dirty laundry list of allegations against Trump earlier this October, ahead of a crucial election month, suggesting Hollywood couldn’t have scripted a better politically charged drama. One has to wonder if the timing was purely coincidental or part of a broader agenda to sway the election narrative. Either way, it’s clear that political lawfare is alive and well, ramping up right before voters head to the polls.
