“The Imminent Threat of Liberty Restraint” Tensions Flare in Court Over Trump’s Prosecution Funding
(Getty Images)
During a recent court hearing in Florida, Emil Bove, attorney for Donald Trump, faced a challenging session with U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon as he argued against the legality of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the former president. The hearing quickly became contentious as Bove received a “rough reception” while contesting the funding of the Special Counsel’s Office (SCO).
Adam Klasfeld, an MSNBC contributor, noted that Judge Cannon scrutinized the SCO’s budget closely during the hearing. “Judge Cannon gave Trump’s prosecutors a rough reception at today’s hearing on the special counsel’s funding, even doing an on-the-spot line item review of their recent disclosures,” Klasfeld reported.
Katie Phang, MSNBC host and attorney, detailed Cannon’s intense exchange with Bove, highlighting the crux of Trump’s defense’s argument. Bove contended that the SCO should not access “permanent, indefinite appropriations” as a funding source because it was not established under any “other law.” This argument echoed similar statements made by Trump’s defense team in a prior hearing, told Newsweek.
Judge Cannon inquired about the “cognizable injury” that could stem from Smith’s funding access, to which Bove responded, emphasizing the serious implications for Trump: “The imminent threat of liberty restraint to Donald Trump resulting from the continuing prosecution or a conviction.”
Trump’s attorney also pointed out inconsistencies in the government’s position regarding the Special Counsel’s independence, suggesting a conflict in their arguments across different hearings. However, Cannon challenged Bove, accusing him of a similar inconsistency. “You’ve argued that the Special Counsel is taking inconsistent opinions, but aren’t you doing the same thing, just flip-flopped?” she queried.
James Pearce, representing the Special Counsel’s office, argued that there were precedents for “limitless appropriations.” During the session, Cannon pressed Pearce on specific expenditures from the SCO, emphasizing potential concerns about the separation of powers due to the undefined scope of funding.
Pearce defended the funding structure, citing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) robust backing for the SCO, “The DOJ has over a billion dollars that can be used as appropriations to fund the Special Counsel’s Office,” he assured, emphasizing the DOJ’s commitment to supporting the prosecution.
The hearing took a turn when Bove brought up concerns about a potential gag order, hinting at attempts to limit Trump’s public communications during his campaign: “And this gag order motion this afternoon. They want to gag Trump on the campaign trail and before a presidential debate. Did the AG authorize the filing of this motion?”
Following these heated exchanges, Cannon called for a recess until 3 p.m., leaving unresolved tensions and significant questions about the legal and financial frameworks surrounding the ongoing prosecution of the former president.
