Attorneys for Donald Trump are now comparing Jack Smith to the “Grinch,” while alleging the Special Counsel is attempting to disenfranchise millions of American voters by trying to convict the ex-president.
“The prosecution has one goal in this case: To unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden. This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy,” the ex-president’s attorneys wrote in a motion opposing expedited review of Trump’s already-rejected claim of absolute immunity from prosecution because he was President when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results.
And citing Dr. Seuss’ iconic 1957 children’s book, “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!” the attorneys likened Special Counsel Smith to the main character, perhaps forgetting in the end he also becomes the hero.
Denouncing Smith’s proposed schedule, Trump’s lawyers complain it “would require attorneys and support staff to work round-the-clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans.”
READ MORE: Hunter Biden Delivers Impassioned Speech on Capitol Hill Blasting ‘MAGA’ GOP: Full Remarks
They wrote: ” ‘It is as if the Special Counsel ‘growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’ ””
It is an apparent effort to delay review, as The Messenger reported. Trump’s attorneys appeared to try to dictate a different schedule than the one the Special Counsel proposed, which might also impact the trial’s schedule.
“Even if the Court grants the motion to expedite—which it should not—any such acceleration should be more measured, and allow, at minimum, twenty days from the scheduling order until the filing of President Trump’s opening brief— especially in light of the impending holidays. Likewise, the Special Counsel’s proposal of a three-day window to file the reply brief…is wholly unreasonable. The Court should grant no less than fourteen days for a proper reply brief and 21 days to prepare for oral argument on these momentous issues, even if it expedites the appeal. Anything less would result in a heedless rush to judgment on some of the most sensitive and important issues that this Court may ever decide.”