The special counsel for the Biden Justice Department, Jack Smith, encountered a legal setback on Tuesday when the judge overseeing his lawsuit involving confidential information against former President Donald Trump determined that he does not have the right to retain these materials in a privately-owned facility located outside of the jurisdiction of the Florida district.
Smith made a prior request to Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by President Trump, seeking permission to store the documents acquired from the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago in a secure facility located in Washington, D.C., which is over 1,000 miles away from the Southern District of Florida where the legal proceedings involving former President Donald Trump are being conducted. On Thursday, Judge Cannon issued a ruling stating that Smith is obligated to disclose the records to Trump’s legal team at a mutually convenient place.
“The parties are advised the production of classified discovery to defense counsel is deemed timely upon placement in an accredited facility in the Southern District of Florida, not in another federal district,” Cannon wrote. “It is the responsibility of the Office of the Special Counsel to make and carry out arrangements to deposit such discovery to defense counsel in this District.”
NEW: Judge Aileen Cannon just denied Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to create a secure facility in DC which would have forced Trump and defendants to travel to DC to view some “classified documents” in Smith’s other case against Trump.
Polar opposite of Judge Chutkan: pic.twitter.com/V1xzUQQKBF
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) October 17, 2023
The ruling constitutes a positive development for President Trump and reinforces Judge Cannon’s prior ruling during the summer, which rejected Smith’s attempt to protect his list of 84 witnesses from the president’s legal team. Smith posited that the recurrent complaints made by President Trump on social media regarding his court matters had the potential to undermine the impartiality of witnesses, as their identities could be disclosed publicly, so leading to prejudice or intimidation.
According to court watchers, it has been noted that Smith is employing a new legal technique that is specifically designed to evoke strong emotional responses from jurors, rather than providing impartial facts. The authors provided an instance of Smith’s linguistic choices, specifically highlighting the frequent utilization of terms such as “fraud/fraudulent” on 63 occasions, “false/falsely” on 94 occasions, as well as the inclusion of “fake” on five occasions and “sham” on three occasions. Certain individuals have made predictions suggesting that a significant portion of the government’s legal arguments against Trump may be dismissed.
Smith is initiating legal proceedings against President Trump based on the provisions of the 1917 Espionage Act. The argument put out by Smith is that the previous president should have possessed the requisite knowledge to refrain from removing documents holding classified national security information from the White House subsequent to his departure. President Trump has refuted the assertion, asserting his prerogative to declassify any and all records within his control in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.
Alina Habba, a prominent attorney representing the president, has issued a warning to Smith’s legal team over the possibility of conducting multiple depositions in order to reveal any potential prejudice within the ongoing case. The author provided one instance wherein FBI officers, during a search operation at Mar-a-Lago, were instructed to deactivate the surveillance cameras.
The post Judge Strikes Down Jack Smith’s Absurd Request In Trump Case appeared first on The Republic Brief.
About Author
