Mar-a-Lago (TFP File) The legal battle surrounding former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents has taken a new turn, with Jud
The legal battle surrounding former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents has taken a new turn, with Judge Aileen Cannon and Special Counsel Jack Smith clashing over the redaction of government witness names.
While Cannon has partially granted Smith’s request, she has criticized him for his failures and lack of adequate legal argument.
Trump faces charges of illegally retaining classified documents, keeping them at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, and obstructing attempts by federal officials to retrieve them.
Despite pleading not guilty and asserting that the documents in question were personal, the former president is under scrutiny for his handling of sensitive information.
Read: Special Counsel Jack Smith Makes Push To Keep Documents Under Seal In Trump Docs Case
Cannon’s Criticism of Smith
Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee overseeing the case, has expressed her dissatisfaction with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s arguments. While granting Smith’s request to redact witness names, Cannon criticized him for his failures and lack of adequate legal support.
Cannon’s criticism primarily focuses on Smith’s alleged failure to provide sufficient reasons for protecting the names of government witnesses from public view. In her ruling on April 9, Cannon pointed out Smith’s shortcomings multiple times, highlighting his failure to offer a governing legal framework or factual support for the relief sought.
Furthermore, Cannon also criticized Smith’s alleged non-compliance with the rules on sealing sensitive court filings. She emphasized that Smith failed to comply with the district’s local rules on sealing, an issue she has repeatedly discussed throughout the proceedings.
“The Special Counsel had two opportunities to raise these arguments and failed to do so in both instances. The Special Counsel’s initial Seal Request failed to offer a governing legal framework or any factual support for the relief sought,” Cannon wrote.
“Later, in response to the Press Coalition’s Motion, the Special Counsel failed to engage with—let alone refute—the Press Coalition’s argument that the First Amendment attached to the subject materials.”
“And this is to say nothing of the Special Counsel’s failure to comply with this District’s Local Rules on sealing, which the Court has emphasized repeatedly throughout this proceeding,” Cannon wrote.
Read: Special Counsel Jack Smith Seeks July Start Date In Trump Documents Case
Smith’s Response
As the special prosecutor in the case, Jack Smith has been defending his actions and responding to Cannon’s criticisms. Smith has argued that the press coalition’s motion to prevent the censorship of documents lacked sufficient grounds, and he believes that the First Amendment should not apply to the subject materials.
In his filings, Smith has also objected to Cannon’s proposed jury instructions, specifically those that would allow the jury to conclude that Trump had the right to retain presidential records as personal items. Smith has strongly objected to these instructions and warned Cannon of potential appeals if the wording is not changed.
The Dispute Over Witness Names
The recent ruling partially granted Smith’s request to redact witness names, which marks a significant development in the case.
While Cannon acknowledged the adequacy of Smith’s showing at this stage, she also emphasized that he will have to justify each redaction individually.
However, Cannon did not rule in favor of sealing the substantive witness statements, as they do not identify the witness or others mentioned. This decision allows more records to become public, shedding light on the evidence against Trump.
Read: Dems’ Attacks On Judge In Florida Overseeing Trump Classified Docs Case Don’t Add Up: Legal Experts
The Deteriorating Relationship
Cannon’s latest written ruling highlights her criticism of Smith and hints at a deteriorating relationship. The two have been engaged in sparring through legal papers, with Cannon expressing her dissatisfaction with Smith’s arguments and approach.
Read: Special Counsel Jack Smith Fires Warning Shot At Florida Judge Overseeing Trump Documents Case
Smith rebuked the judge last week for making a request he said rests on “fundamentally flawed legal premise.”
Cannon instructed both parties to file proposed jury instructions engaging with two scenarios involving the Presidential Records Act and its distinction between personal and presidential records. Smith said in his response that accepting the legal premise in the scenarios would be “pure fiction” and that the resulting jury instructions would “distort the trial.”
“The Court should be aware at the outset that Trump’s entire effort to rely on the PRA is not based on any facts,” Smith wrote. “It is a post hoc justification that was concocted more than a year after he left the White House, and his invocation in this Court of the PRA is not grounded in any decision he actually made during his presidency to designate as personal any of the records charged in the Superseding Indictment.”
Cannon’s first scenario stated that a jury is “permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his/her personal possession at the end of his/her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act (PRA).”
The second scenario said that “a president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency” and that a court cannot “review such a categorization decision.”
Read: Florida State Attorney Says Jack Smith May Press ‘Red Button’ To Try To Disqualify Judge, Get Trump
Smith wrote that jury instructions based on the second scenario put forward by Cannon “would amount to nothing more than a recitation of Trump’s PRA defense as presented in his motion to dismiss and would result in directing a verdict against the Government.”
Trump argued in a motion to dismiss that the Presidential Records Act “precludes judicial review of the President’s recordkeeping practices and decisions.”
Smith told Cannon she should “deny Trump’s pending motion to dismiss and adopt preliminary jury instructions as proposed by the Government.”
“If, however, the Court does not reject that erroneous legal premise, it should make that decision clear now, long before jeopardy attaches, to allow the Government the opportunity to seek appellate review,” Smith wrote.
The repeated clashes between Cannon and Smith indicate the growing tension surrounding the case and the differing perspectives on witnesses, redactions, and other crucial aspects.
Trial Delay and Future Proceedings
Although the trial was initially scheduled to begin next month, a delay is expected due to ongoing disputes and the need for further preparations.
Smith has proposed a potential start date of July 8, but Cannon has yet to set a new date.
As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen how the relationship between Cannon and Smith will evolve and what impact it will have on the proceedings.
Help support the Tampa Free Press by making any small donation by clicking here.
Android Users, Click To Download The Tampa Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our free newsletter.
