free webpage hit counter

In a court order, Trump attorneys humiliate Jack Smith

by Jessica

In a comprehensive thirty-seven-page filing, the legal team representing former President Donald J. Trump vehemently criticized the defense put forth by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors regarding the gag order imposed by Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The legal brief from Trump’s attorneys systematically dismantled the constitutionality of the gag order, asserting that it “fails at every step” and violates fundamental First Amendment doctrines.

The filing accused the prosecutors of relying on “hearsay media reports as a substitute for evidence” and emphasized the “glaring evidentiary gaps” in their case.

Trump’s legal team contended that the gag order, which restricts the President’s core political speech, was an unwarranted intrusion into the presidential election, just weeks before key events like the Iowa caucuses.

The defense highlighted thirty-three different cases, dating back to 1959, as precedents that challenge the constitutionality of the gag order.

Trump’s attorneys argued that criminal proceedings do not suspend the First Amendment and that the prosecution’s objection to public criticism demonstrated an attempt to muzzle dissent.

The legal team pointed out logical gaps in the argument supporting the gag order, particularly regarding a parallel gag order in a New York court related to Trump’s ongoing trial.

They highlighted the disproportionate impact of silencing a political candidate with over 100 million followers compared to a single speaker, asserting that such an argument would “flunk first-grade math.”

Ultimately, the defense asserted that the Supreme Court has never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election.

They concluded that the gag order violated the rights of 100 million Americans and emphasized that the First Amendment does not permit the court or the prosecution to micromanage President Trump’s campaign speech or dictate what forms of speech are appropriate for political debate.

Related Posts