{"id":13350,"date":"2024-03-10T05:38:07","date_gmt":"2024-03-10T00:08:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cccfornews.com\/index.php\/2024\/03\/10\/judge-allows-legal-groups-to-submit-pro-trump-briefs\/"},"modified":"2024-03-10T05:38:07","modified_gmt":"2024-03-10T00:08:07","slug":"judge-allows-legal-groups-to-submit-pro-trump-briefs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cccfornews.com\/index.php\/2024\/03\/10\/judge-allows-legal-groups-to-submit-pro-trump-briefs\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Allows Legal Groups to Submit Pro-Trump Briefs"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

A federal judge overseeing the Trump classified document case has allowed third-party legal groups to submit briefs that may benefit Donald Trump in his classified documents case.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a paperless order<\/a> that permits former Trump adviser Stephen Miller\u2019s America First Legal Foundation and former Republican Attorney General Edwin Meese to file a brief.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Court has reviewed the motions and finds that the proposed amici bring to the Court\u2019s attention relevant matter that may be of considerable help to the Court in resolving the cited pretrial motions,\u201d the order states. \u201cThe amicus briefs are accepted for Court consideration.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

BREAKING: Judge Cannon in Trump classified docs case has accepted two amicus briefs filed by Trump’s legal team which may be of considerable help in response to Trump’s motions to dismiss. <\/p>\n

CLAIMS:
1. NARA referral was flawed <\/p>\n

2. Jack Smith was improperly appointed pic.twitter.com\/FeSRqcsDlW<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Patrick Webb (@RealPatrickWebb) March 6, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

One brief claimed that a National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) referral made to the Justice Department to indict President Trump violated federal law. If not addressed, the referral would \u201cdangerously expand the ability of an incumbent President to harass a former President by seizing documents based on the request of any agency for nearly any reason,\u201d America First argued, according to The Epoch Times<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another brief claimed that Special Counsel Jack Smith lacked the authority to prosecute Trump because of an improper appointment.<\/p>\n

\u201cJack Smith does not have authority to prosecute this case. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices,\u201d the brief states. \u201cBut neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. He wields tremendous power, answerable to no one. That appointment was unlawful, as are all the legal actions that have flowed from it, including Smith\u2019s prosecution of President Trump.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

New CU Amicus Brief filed in Southern District of Florida:<\/p>\n

Jack Smith does not have authority to prosecute this case. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. But neither Smith nor the position of\u2026<\/p>\n

\u2014 Citizens United (@Citizens_United) March 6, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Trump\u2019s lawyers have maintained that the classified documents case should be dismissed due to Trump\u2019s presidential immunity.<\/p>\n

\u201cPresident Trump exercised virtually unreviewable Article II executive authority to designate the records as personal when, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment, he \u2018caused\u2019 the materials to be transported out of the White House while he was still in office,\u201d his lawyers wrote<\/a> last month. \u201cThe alleged decision was an official act, and as such is subject to presidential immunity.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n