Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump have asserted in the classified documents case that special prosecutor Jack Smith has been allocated excessive resources, while other sectors of the Department of Justice have been neglected.
Facing numerous charges of allegedly unlawfully retaining classified materials post his tenure in 2021, the former president has pleaded not guilty and sought trial postponement. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has yet to set a definitive trial date.
Trump’s legal team argued this week that Smith’s team has been granted “a blank check,” jeopardizing Trump’s rights. Trump’s attorney Christopher Kise wrote to Judge Cannon, stating, “Offering the Special Counsel a blank check has harmed President Trump’s substantial rights.” Kise emphasized the historical significance of resource constraints on prosecutors for ensuring substantive fairness.
Due to the absence of constraints, Kise contended that Smith’s office could conduct a politically motivated crusade against Trump without accountability. Smith was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to handle both the classified documents case and the federal election case in Washington.
Kise further claimed that the special counsel’s office, devoid of resource limitations, could strategically pursue cases across jurisdictions to interfere with the presidential election actively.
Regarding funding disparities within the DOJ, Kise noted instances where other departments, such as those tackling Big Tech antitrust cases, were denied funding due to budget constraints.
Critics have argued that Smith’s appointment by the U.S. attorney general violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, contending that Congress must approve his team’s expenditures.
A law professor submitted a brief, asserting that Smith’s appointment did not accord him the status of an “officer of the United States” as defined by the Constitution, thereby questioning the legality of his actions.
In response, Smith defended the validity of his appointment, refuting claims of impropriety and asserting the rejection of such arguments by the courts, including the Supreme Court.
