Judge Makes Major Decision In Trump’s Classified Documents Case

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in favor of Special Counsel Jack Smith this week in the case involving former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents.

Smith had filed a motion in March regarding a forthcoming filing from Trump’s co-defendant Walt Nauta.

Cannon, who is overseeing the trial where Smith accuses Trump of mishandling classified materials, approved the motion.

Prior to its public release, a portion of the filing was heavily redacted at Smith’s request.

In his lawsuit consisting of 40 counts, Smith alleges that Trump unlawfully kept classified materials at his Florida property, Mar-a-Lago, and obstructed efforts by the government to recover them, as reported by Newsweek.

Donald Trump, the expected Republican presidential candidate, has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

He maintains his innocence and asserts that he is being unfairly targeted by the Justice Department for political reasons.

Responding to Smith’s motion, Judge Cannon, appointed by Trump, ruled on Wednesday that some of the requested material should be redacted before being disclosed publicly.

“PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part the Special Counsel’s Third Motion for Redactions [423] in accordance with the Court’s prior Orders [474] [492]. The Court expresses no opinion on any other requests contained in the Special Counsel’s Motion. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 4/30/2024,” Cannon’s order reads.

In his order, Smith listed the document parts that he believed should be concealed prior to their public release.

For example, he wrote that some of the papers in the filing were about things that are currently secret. It talked about “a sealed grand jury proceeding in the District of Columbia that involved a third client of his counsel, but that was unrelated to this case,” and it supposedly named possible government witnesses in a different part.

“As the Government has argued in its prior motions for redactions and/or sealing (ECF Nos. 348 and 384), witness safety and privacy are paramount pretrial. The limited redactions of the names satisfy the good cause standard established in Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc…as well as the higher standard requiring a compelling interest for the redactions and the redactions being narrowly tailored,” he wrote.

Smith has been facing a rough patch recently.

Last week, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig shared some troubling updates with Smith following a ruling by Judge Cannon in the case.

Judge Cannon, who has been criticized from the left for her handling of the case, issued a three-page order that prompted Smith to make comments during a segment on the network this month.

In her order, Cannon criticized Smith for a recent filing and also denied Trump’s request to dismiss the case citing protection under the Presidential Records Act.

The Washington Post reported: “Even as she ruled against Trump’s motion, Cannon’s three-page order also revealed her displeasure over Smith’s characterization of her order, suggesting this may not be the last such battle in the historic prosecution of a former president and the presumptive GOP presidential candidate.”

CNN host Brianna Keilar asked the former federal prosecutor, “Where does this leave the timeline of this case, Elie?”

“Well, a mess, in short,” he responded. “No way that this case was gonna get tried before the election. And now, I think we have other pending issues.”

Honig highlighted that certain legal professionals are proposing Smith’s potential appeal to the 11th Circuit to seek Cannon’s removal from the case.

Previously, the 11th Circuit has reversed two of Cannon’s rulings that favored Trump in this matter.

Despite this, Honig argues that Cannon’s recent decision has severely hindered Smith’s ability to pursue such a course of action.

“I actually think what the judge did today forecloses that, makes it impossible to do that because the judge said, ‘Well, we’re gonna decide when the trial happens, and maybe it’s something that will go to the jury,’” Honig continued.

“You really can’t appeal that if you’re Jack Smith. And by the way, Brie, this is why I think Jack Smith is concerned with today’s ruling. Although he won in the sense that the court did not dismiss the charges, if I’m Jack Smith – and I think Smith feels the same way – I’m very worried about this defense going to a jury because it’s confusing, because it’s complicated, because it’s technical. And prosecutors always want to tell a simple, straightforward story. And frankly, defendants want to muck things up,” he added.

“And as much as I think this defense lacks merit, I do think it could confuse a jury in a way that would worry me as a prosecutor,” he said.

Also, in her order, Cannon chastised Smith for seeking jury instructions way too early, “prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence.”

In a related case, another legal expert believes Trump’s presidential immunity case before the Supreme Court is looking good for him.

Writing in The Atlantic, senior editor Ronald Brownstein’s piece “Trump Is Getting What He Wants” concluded that the former president will likely not be tried in federal courts before the November election.

“Five of the Republican-appointed justices, really all of them except Amy Coney Barrett, gave very clear signals that they are going to protect the Republican presidential nominee from a trial before the November election on the charges that this poll and other polls show are the most serious to the American people,” Brownstein told CNN host Kate Bolduan.

“I mean, in practical terms, almost any of the rulings that seemed possible out of that hearing are going to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a trial on whether Trump tried to subvert the last election before he faces voters in the next election,” he added.

ICYMI: President Trump Responds to Leaked CIA Recording Alleging Senior Officials Withheld Information From Him