HomeFlorida NewsTrump's lawyer cries foul over funding for special counsel in Florida case

Trump’s lawyer cries foul over funding for special counsel in Florida case


Florida – The former president of the United States, Donald Trump, is facing several criminal cases, but the one that has been drawing the most attention since the beginning would probably be the Florida case regarding the handling of classified documents, mostly due to the intricacies of the case.

Trump's lawyer cries foul over funding for special counsel in Florida case

Accusations of a “Witch Hunt”

In a legal filing that has sparked widespread discussion, Christopher Kise, the lawyer for former President Donald Trump, has accused Special Counsel Jack Smith of conducting a “witch hunt” backed by seemingly unlimited government resources. This accusation is centered around the ongoing legal challenges Trump is facing in both Florida and Washington, D.C.

Kise’s assertion came to light in a recent filing related to Trump’s classified documents case in Florida, where he is accused of improperly handling sensitive government materials. According to Kise, Smith, the prosecutor in this case, has been allocated extensive resources that contrast sharply with other areas of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that allegedly suffer from funding shortages. This discrepancy, Kise argues, not only affects the fairness of the legal proceedings but also infringes upon Trump’s substantial rights.

Allegations of Unfair Advantage

In his argument to Judge Aileen Cannon, Kise outlined that the special counsel’s office has received what he terms a “blank check” to pursue charges against Trump, impacting both his legal battle over classified documents and accusations of interference in the 2020 presidential election. “To be clear, offering the Special Counsel a blank check has harmed President Trump’s substantial rights, and DOJ simply could not have funded the entirety of Jack Smith’s expansive politically motivated witch hunt from an alternative source,” Kise stated emphatically in the filing.

Check also: The prosecutor just won a battle in Trump’s Florida case, but Trump is winning the war, expert says

Trump faces a total of 40 federal charges related to his handling of classified documents after his tenure at the White House ended in January 2021. These include serious allegations of obstructing federal efforts to retrieve sensitive materials from his Mar-a-Lago estate. Moreover, Trump was indicted on four counts in Washington, D.C., for his alleged role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. In both jurisdictions, Trump has maintained his innocence, pleading not guilty to all charges.

Kise further criticized the dual prosecution approach taken by the Special Counsel’s Office, suggesting it is strategically designed to disrupt Trump’s potential run in the 2024 presidential election. “The Special Counsel’s Office is pursuing two different cases in two jurisdictions in order to maximize interference in the ongoing presidential election. This tactic is the luxury of a prosecutor facing no resource constraints,” he elaborated.

Comparing Departmental Funding

Highlighting what he perceives as a disparity in DOJ resource allocation, Kise pointed out that funding constraints had previously forced the DOJ to abandon an investigation into Apple, opting instead to focus on Google due to budgetary limits. He argues that such constraints are crucial for ensuring fairness, something he claims is lacking in the Special Counsel’s aggressive pursuit of Trump. “Resource constraints on prosecutors have been regarded as an indispensable guarantee of substantive fairness,” he noted, criticizing the unrestricted funding for Smith’s investigation as a facilitator of a politically motivated campaign.

Check also: Judge prepares another present for Trump in the Florida case, blow for prosecutor Jack Smith

Kise’s arguments also touch on constitutional concerns, specifically citing the Appropriations Clause, which mandates that no money shall be drawn from the U.S. Treasury without proper legislative authorization. He contends that Smith’s appointment and the subsequent financial backing violate this clause, as there is no specific legislation authorizing unlimited expenditure for the Special Counsel’s activities.

This ongoing legal battle not only highlights the intense political divisions surrounding Trump’s legal woes but also raises significant questions about the balance of power, fairness in prosecution, and the implications of potentially unlimited government spending in high-profile political cases.

Read more