Op-Ed: The Lawfare Campaign Against President Trump Continues to Fall Apart

The following Op-Ed was sent out by Congressman Mike Simpson. Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Idaho Dispatch and are not considered “news articles” but information/opinions put out by an elected official or organization.

From facing multiple legal challenges to then attempting to take President Trump’s name off the ballot, it is crystal clear the Left has weaponized our judicial system against the former President. But what Americans see unfold in real-time is an unhinged lawfare campaign falling apart while the rule of law prevails.

Following just weeks after the Supreme Court acted as a balancing force against the Left’s weaponization of the judicial system in Trump v. United States, Judge Cannon—the federal judge overseeing the case alleging President Trump mishandled classified documents—has moved to dismiss the case.

Advertisement

This is a major victory for the rule of law, equal justice, and our Constitution. In addition to finding that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed, Judge Cannon also found that Smith’s office crossed a constitutional barrier to go after President Trump – Congress never authorized the appropriation of money Smith’s office used.

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution—known as the Appropriations Clause—grants Congress the “power of the purse” by prohibiting expenditures “but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

This Clause is foundational to the Constitution’s separation of powers and underscores the importance of Congress’ authority to control government spending. However, as Judge Cannon details in her 93-page opinion, Congress has provided no statutory basis for the funding of Smith’s legal attacks on President Trump.

Advertisement

As a senior appropriator, I am pleased to see the Court reaffirm the legislative branch’s sole power of the purse by rejecting the Justice Department’s unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars for this partisan prosecution.

Last week, I was criticized for not supporting an amendment from Congressman Clyde that prohibits federal funds from prosecuting a presidential candidate before the 2024 election. But as I knew—and Judge Cannon confirmed—Clyde’s amendment wasn’t needed because Democrats were never authorized to use these funds in the first place. Once again, Democrats were skirting around the Constitution.

From the beginning, I have sounded the alarm that the trials against President Trump are politically motivated and utter nonsense. I am pleased to see the dismissal of this case and that, once again, the rule of law prevails.

####