In a vigorous critique released on a recent Friday, Attorneys for previous president Donald Trump sternly criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith's justifications for a gag order against Trump, asserting that the special counsel's logic would not pass muster even in an elementary math class.

Trump's legal team contended that Smith's rationale was unsuccessful on all fronts, which they argue transgresses an assortment of fundamental First Amendment rights.

The 37-page filing plainly expressed the attorneys' standpoint that the prosecutors had erroneously substituted hearsay and media reports as actual proof, emphasizing what they describe as glaring inadequacies in the prosecutors' evidence supporting their case.

The attorneys went on to criticize the gag order, stating that it places a solitary federal judge as the pivotal gatekeeper intercepting any communication between Trump, the leading presidential candidate, and the American populace at large.

In their view, the district court inappropriately overstepped its bounds by meddling in the presidential election process in the crucial period leading up to the Iowa caucuses. They emphasized their belief that the First Amendment does not confer upon the district court the authority to supervise Trump's primary political speech or to dictate terms on what type of speech is sufficiently 'general' versus what is overly 'targeted' for the court's liking.

In a vigorous critique released on a recent Friday, Attorneys for previous president Donald Trump sternly criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith's justifications for a gag order against Trump, asserting that the special counsel's logic would not pass muster even in an elementary math class.
Trump's legal team contended that Smith's rationale was unsuccessful on all fronts, which they argue transgresses an assortment of fundamental First Amendment rights.
The 37-page filing plainly expressed the attorneys' standpoint that the prosecutors had erroneously substituted hearsay and media reports as actual proof, emphasizing what they describe as glaring inadequacies in the prosecutors' evidence supporting their case.
The attorneys went on to criticize the gag order, stating that it places a solitary federal judge as the pivotal gatekeeper intercepting any communication between Trump, the leading presidential candidate, and the American populace at large.
In their view, the district court inappropriately overstepped its bounds by meddling in the presidential election process in the crucial period leading up to the Iowa caucuses. They emphasized their belief that the First Amendment does not confer upon the district court the authority to supervise Trump's primary political speech or to dictate terms on what type of speech is sufficiently 'general' versus what is overly 'targeted' for the court's liking.

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Real News Now Podcast

Real News Now Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

<a href="https://realnewsnow.com/">Real News Now</a> Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

Advertisement