Special Counsel Jack Smith launched a scathing rebuke against Judge Aileen Cannon’s recent move in the case involving classified documents and ex-President Donald Trump. Smith’s team, in blistering court filings on Tuesday, lambasted Cannon’s request for jury instructions, branding it as legally flawed and devoid of merit.
Cannon’s request, which centered on potential jury instructions regarding the Espionage Act charges against Trump, drew intense criticism. She sought two versions of instructions—one evaluating whether the records in question were “personal” or “presidential” under the Presidential Records Act, and another assuming Trump’s unfettered authority to take any records he pleased from the White House, potentially hamstringing prosecution efforts.
Smith’s team didn’t pull punches, slamming both scenarios as rooted in flawed legal reasoning. They vehemently argued that the distinction between “personal” and “presidential” records under the Presidential Records Act didn’t dictate Trump’s authorization to possess highly classified documents under the Espionage Act.
Trump’s defense didn’t miss the opportunity to push back, asserting that Trump was indeed authorized by the Presidential Records Act to possess certain documents deemed “personal records.” They contended that the scenario of Trump’s presumed authority to take records would render jury instructions irrelevant.
Prosecutors fired back, reiterating that the Presidential Records Act held no relevance to the charges, as Trump’s alleged misconduct occurred post-presidency. They lambasted Trump’s claim of deeming the records personal as a fabrication, concocted only after the National Archives retrieved classified information from Mar-a-Lago.
The filing also uncovered damning evidence suggesting that Trump failed to designate the classified records as personal upon leaving office, instead allegedly adopting the idea months later from a conservative legal outfit.
While Cannon seemed hesitant to dismiss the charges outright, she acknowledged the potency of Trump’s defense arguments, hinting at their potential sway with a trial jury. Yet, she refrained from making a final ruling on the dismissal request, signaling ongoing deliberation regarding the Presidential Records Act’s role in the case’s trajectory.
