Prosecutors Criticize Judge’s Handling of Classified Documents Case
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith delivered a scathing rebuke of Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. Smith stated in court filings that Cannon’s understanding of the case was “fundamentally flawed” and had “no basis in law or fact.”
Smith’s team strongly criticized Cannon’s request for jury instructions that supported Trump’s claims of broad authority to handle classified government documents. They threatened to seek an appeals court review if Cannon accepted Trump’s arguments about his record-retention powers.
Unusual Order from Judge
In a rare move, Cannon asked attorneys in the case to submit briefs on potential jury instructions defining terms of the Espionage Act, under which Trump is charged for mishandling 32 classified records.
Cannon requested two versions of proposed jury instructions. The first scenario would assess whether the records Trump retained were “personal” or “presidential” as defined by the Presidential Records Act. The second scenario assumed Trump had complete authority to take any records he wanted as president, making it difficult for prosecutors to secure a conviction.
Smith’s team argued that both scenarios were based on a flawed legal premise and would distort the trial if presented to a jury.
Defense Attorneys Push Back
Trump’s defense attorneys proposed their own jury instructions, claiming Trump was authorized to possess “personal records” during and after his presidency. They challenged Smith’s ability to prove Trump’s knowledge of the law, citing the difficulty of recording past thoughts.
Prosecutors maintained that the Presidential Records Act was not relevant to the charges against Trump, as the alleged misconduct occurred after his presidency. They argued that Trump’s claim of deeming the records personal was fabricated after the National Archives retrieved classified information from Mar-a-Lago.
Judge’s Decision Pending
Cannon appeared hesitant to dismiss the case outright but acknowledged the forceful arguments presented by Trump’s attorneys. She has not made a ruling on the dismissal request and is still considering the role of the Presidential Records Act in the case.
The new filings shed light on evidence regarding Trump’s record-keeping habits during his presidency, revealing discrepancies in his designation of classified records as personal. The judge’s handling of the case remains under scrutiny as the legal battle continues. — CNN
