Don't Wait.
We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:

Top Stories

Latest News

By Mae Slater on
 January 7, 2025

Trump Team Files Motion To Block Jack Smith's Report

President-elect Donald Trump's legal team has taken immediate legal action to prevent former Special Counsel Jack Smith from sharing a potentially damaging report related to a case concerning document mishandling.

Breitbart reported that Trump’s attorneys are challenging the former special counsel's authority, claiming that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, which could unduly influence unresolved legal matters.

On Monday, Trump's lawyers filed an emergency motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The motion seeks to stop Smith from releasing his findings, referred to as the "Final Report." Trump's team argues that Smith's involvement in the case was illegitimate due to procedural issues surrounding his appointment.

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Trump

Earlier this year, in July, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Smith's prosecution of Trump due to procedural mishaps and questions surrounding Smith's role.

The attorney's appointment was contentious because he lacked Senate confirmation and was not a U.S. Attorney, leading to claims of unconstitutional conduct. These factors now underpin Trump's legal strategy.

The defendants in this matter are not limited to Trump alone. Trump's confidants, including Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, are also facing legal exposure. Trump's lawyers fear detrimental effects on these ongoing cases if Smith's report is disseminated widely. They contend that the document's release would prevent defendants from effectively contesting its content, causing them unjust harm.

Multiple aspects of the emergency motion critique the nature of Smith's intended report. Trump's team describes it as unduly influenced by grand jury evidence.

They posit that the report is skewed and improperly crafted to suggest guilt, which could have prescriptive public implications. These claims of bias question the report's constitutional and procedural validity.

Furthermore, despite Judge Cannon's earlier rulings, Trump's legal filing accuses Smith of stubbornly pursuing the final issuance of his report. This determination, as articulated, could potentially circumvent court decisions, displaying a disregard for prescribed legal procedures.

Additionally, Trump's legal team takes issue with the government for its continued action following Smith's dismissal. They argue that the government has not properly addressed disclosure rules for grand jury information.

The continued legal briefings by the government, even after Smith stepped down, draw criticism from Trump's attorneys, who view these efforts as inconsistent with earlier court findings.

Attention is also drawn to Smith's prior activities. In October, Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presides over the January 6 case in Washington, D.C., allowed Smith to file an extensive motion against Trump. This motion later became public, offering insight into Smith’s legal tactics.

Previous Actions By Judge Chutkan

Trump's legal advisors claim the October filing served more as a political maneuver than a legal necessity. They believe the move was intended to sway public perception just as critical election season approaches. Allegations within the document remained uncontested, which Trump's team asserts were strategically leveraged to influence political discourse.

Central to Trump's case is the assertion that Smith's role was unconstitutionally designated. Without Senate confirmation or the title of U.S. Attorney, Smith's authority to pursue reports or legal claims is questioned by Trump's defense. This perceived impropriety now plays a significant role in impeding Smith's continued efforts.

In constructing their legal argument, the defense suggests that Smith’s proposed report lacks substantiated backing. They argue that it is heavily reliant on grand jury proceedings, which were not meant for public dissemination at this juncture. The report's bias and one-sided nature remain focal points for Trump's team.

Trump’s legal representatives further emphasize the undue harm that could befall all defendants if Smith’s report goes public. They believe it would cast Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira in a negative light, suggesting presumption of guilt before court decisions are finalized. This portrayal, they argue, serves a singular political end.

Moreover, the emergency motion indicates possible repercussions for Trump's upcoming presidential campaign. By publishing a report filled with allegations that cannot currently be refuted, Trump's legal team argues it stands to mislead the public and interfere with electoral processes.

Written By:
Mae Slater

Latest Posts

See All
Newsletter
Get news from American Digest in your inbox.
By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: American Digest, 3000 S. Hulen Street, Ste 124 #1064, Fort Worth, TX, 76109, US, https://staging.americandigest.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact.
© 2025 - The American Digest - All Rights Reserved