Special counsel Jack Smith strongly criticized the judge presiding over the case involving classified documents against former President Donald Trump. In a scathing rebuke on Tuesday, Smith expressed his disagreement with the judge’s recent order, stating that it was based on flawed legal interpretations.
In response to a recent order from Judge Aileen Cannon, Smith has submitted a response. The order required lawyers from both sides of the case to submit jury instructions, even before a trial date has been set. Trump, along with two co-conspirators, has been indicted with numerous felony federal counts. These charges are related to the former president’s handling of classified documents following his departure from the White House. Trump has maintained his plea of not guilty to all the charges.
Cannon’s order seemed to support Trump’s assertion that he had extensive power to acquire anything he desired upon the conclusion of his presidency, as stated by the Presidential Records Act. However, Smith disagreed with the judge’s statements in the document and argued that it was unfounded to claim that classified documents belonged to Trump as his personal property under the act.
Smith’s legal team argues that the premise used in the jury instruction is flawed and would lead to a distorted trial. They assert that the distinction made by the Presidential Records Act between personal and presidential records is irrelevant to the question of whether a former President’s possession of documents containing national defense information is authorized under the Espionage Act. According to them, the Presidential Records Act should not be considered in the jury instructions.
Legal experts are deeply concerned about Cannon’s order for jury instructions and the slow progress of the case.
According to Smith, it is essential for the court to decide whether Trump’s interpretation of the law, which he refers to as the “unstated legal premise,” is correct. Smith suggests that if Cannon makes this ruling, the government will seek intervention from another court.
According to Smith, if the Court makes the incorrect determination that it includes the PRA in the jury instructions, the Government should be given the chance to consider appellate review.
According to him, Trump’s utilization of the Presidential Records Act in the situation was unfounded and fabricated, as it was devised over a year after his departure from the White House.
According to Smith, Trump’s attempt to create a legal presumption without any factual basis is unfounded. Smith argues that there is no justification in law or fact for such a presumption, and therefore, the court should dismiss Trump’s efforts to introduce the PRA into this case.
Trump has strongly criticized prosecutors involved in the case. His trial for one of his four indictments, which focuses on hush money payments to an adult film star, is scheduled for April 15.
Read More:
- Proposed law mandates additional background check and mandatory training for gun purchases
- Stein supports Biden administration’s legal action against Idaho
