Special Counsel Slams Judge's 'Fundamentally Flawed' Approach In Trump's Classified Documents Case

In a recent development, Special counsel Jack Smith has openly criticized the handling of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump by Judge Aileen Cannon.

What Happened: Smith’s team expressed their disapproval of Cannon’s request for jury instructions that favored Trump’s assertion of possessing extensive authority to retain classified government documents. They warned of seeking a review from the appeals court if Cannon approved Trump’s arguments regarding his record-retention powers, CNN reported.

Previously, Cannon had directed attorneys to provide briefs on possible jury instructions defining terms of the Espionage Act, under which Trump is charged with mishandling 32 classified records. She requested two versions of the proposed jury instructions.

The first version would assist a jury in determining whether each of the records that Trump is accused of retaining fell into the categories of “personal” or “presidential” as per the Presidential Records Act. The second version presumes that Trump, as president, had total authority to take records he wanted from the White House, making it nearly impossible for prosecutors to secure a conviction.

Smith’s team contended, "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.”

See Also: Marjorie Taylor Greene Denies Responsibility For Hakeem Jeffries’ Speaker Role, Elon Musk Weighs In On Nancy Pelosi’s Stock Picks And More: Top Political Updates This Week

Trump’s defense attorneys, in their proposed jury instructions, suggested that Trump was “authorized” by the PRA to “possess a category of documents defined as ‘personal records,’ both during and after his term in office.”

Prosecutors have consistently stated that the PRA is not relevant to the charges against Trump, as the conduct he is accused of occurred after his term as president ended. They termed Trump’s claim that he deemed the records personal as “pure fiction.”

Judge Cannon has not yet made an official ruling on the request to dismiss the case, but her request for hypothetical jury instructions indicates that she is still considering how, or if, the PRA fits into the case at large.

Why It Matters: This came after former White House attorney Ty Cobb in February accused Judge Cannon of intentionally delaying the case involving classified documents linked to Trump until after the 2024 presidential election.

The former president is currently dealing with legal challenges on both federal and state levels, across different places like New York City, Washington, Atlanta, Florida, and Georgia. Despite the allegations, he continues to assert his innocence, describing the cases as a "witch hunt."

According to Real Clear Politics, at the national level, Trump held 46.6% support among voters, While Biden trailed with 45.8% support.

Read Next: Jimmy Kimmel Mocks Trump’s Truth Social Rant: ‘If That Was Your Dad, You’d Have Him Put Away, Right?’

Photo by Jonah Elkowitz on Shutterstock