Special Counsel Jack Smith criticized Judge Aileen Cannon in a document filed on Tuesday in the Justice Department’s case against former President Donald Trump. Smith’s team claimed that Cannon had a flawed understanding of the case and requested draft language for potential jury instructions that they believe support Trump’s argument of having broad authority over classified documents.
Additionally, Smith’s team mentioned the possibility of seeking an appeal court review. Cannon asked for instructions for two scenarios: one where jurors would determine if the records were “personal” or “presidential,” and another assuming Trump had full authority to take any records from the White House.
“Both scenarios rest on an unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise — namely, that the Presidential Records Act and in particular its distinction between ‘personal’ and ‘Presidential’ records, determines whether a former President is ‘authorized,’ under the Espionage Act, to possess highly classified documents and store them in an unsecure facility,” Smith’s team wrote in the filing.
Trump’s defense team asserts that the former president possessed extensive authority to categorize any document from his tenure as president as personal, and therefore, they argue that the case should be dismissed. Smith’s legal team refutes this claim, labeling it as “pure fiction.”
Smith’s team contends that the court should render a verdict on whether the Presidential Records Act and the differentiation between personal and presidential records are applicable to this case. This would enable them to appeal the decision, if it concludes that the Act is indeed relevant, before the trial commences, potentially leading to Trump’s acquittal. Smith’s criticism of Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, arises at a time when Trump’s adversaries have criticized him for attacking Justice Arthur Engoron and Judge Juan Merchan in two other lawsuits filed against him.
Activist Julie Kelly discovered that Smith’s filing made it “clear that the gloves are off btw DOJ and Judge Cannon.”
Jack Smith's response is hysterical (and not in a funny way in a desperate way) bc he knows he has little control over her decision related to final jury instructions.
And he is arguing the basis for Trump's "unauthorized possession" of national defense material rests on Obama… pic.twitter.com/uVr0qxy8ex
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 3, 2024
Mike Davis, the creator of the legal advocacy organization Article III Project, remarked on the inconsistency of Democrats expressing outrage over Trump’s criticisms of judges compared to Democrats’ criticisms of Cannon.
When Trump raises evidence of a judge’s political bias, Democrats pretend that’s a “violent threat.”
But when these Democrats hysterically attack another judge for ensuring Trump gets a fair trial, they don’t say a word after the resulting death threats.https://t.co/gmsLWfDVLM
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 3, 2024
