Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, informed the Florida court about the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. Blanche argued that this ruling undermines the prosecution's claim that Trump has no immunity and exposes the politically motivated nature of their actions. Blanche also noted that the prosecution cannot rely on evidence of "official acts" in this case and requested permission to file additional briefings on these issues.
Furthermore, Blanche indicates plans to revive a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.
He cited Justice Thomas's concurrence, which raised concerns about the validity of Smith's position under the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, suggesting these issues should be resolved before the case proceeds.
United States v. Trump (Docs Case)
Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, informed the Florida court about the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. Blanche argued that this ruling undermines the prosecution's claim that Trump has no immunity and exposes the politically motivated nature of their actions. Blanche also noted that the prosecution cannot rely on evidence of "official acts" in this case and requested permission to file additional briefings on these issues.
Furthermore, Blanche indicates plans to revive a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.
He cited Justice Thomas's concurrence, which raised concerns about the validity of Smith's position under the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, suggesting these issues should be resolved before the case proceeds.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.663.0_2.pdf
u/#sinking
kek