u.s. district judge aileen cannon Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

DOJ aims to keep Trump from intervening in Mar-a-Lago case

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:24:52 +0000

Left: FILE – Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at an office of the Department of Justice in Washington (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File). Center: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida). Right: Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before departing Manhattan criminal court, Monday, May 6, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, Pool).

The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday aimed to keep President-elect Donald Trump from intervening in the criminal case against his former co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents matter.

Technically, the extant proceedings concern Waltine “Walt” Nauta, Trump’s personal valet, and Carlos de Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s chief of maintenance, both of whom face federal charges. Those charges, however, are almost certain – and widely expected – to be dropped by the incoming Trump administration in a matter of days.

What remains is a time-limited dispute about whether or not a federal judge should allow the limited release of the second volume of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on his Trump investigations.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon set a hearing for Jan. 17 to deal with the remaining issues related to the report.

After that hearing, there is the real possibility the second volume of Smith’s final report could be released to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

And, according to DOJ attorneys, that’s the only issue left after weeks of legal jockeying for position and concomitant court orders.

On Jan. 7, Trump filed his motion to intervene in the case – rubbishing Smith and the effort to publicize the report in no uncertain terms.

“Releasing the Final Report is also improper because this is not Smith’s case anymore; he has been disqualified by a court of law and is now proceeding as a rogue actor with a personal and political vendetta against the Defendants,” the motion says. “Our system simply does not allow a disqualified prosecutor to withdraw from an unlawful appeal only then to embark on a media mudslinging tour through the issuance of a highly detailed and one-sided press release describing the events charged in the superseding indictment and the Government’s theory of prosecution as it relates to those events.”

In the week and two days since, however, several issues were made moot. And, the DOJ itself took on the mantle of the party interested in having the full report, inclusive of the second volume, released.

More Law&Crime coverage: Jack Smith asks 11th Circuit to keep Mar-a-Lago case alive even without Trump — in the name of ‘common sense’

As the case moved up the appellate ladder in a relatively quick fashion, Nauta and De Oliveira claimed the government was, essentially, waging a dirty tricks campaign and trying to game the judicial system. The co-defendants further accused the DOJ of moving to publicize a report that would jeopardize their constitutional rights.

The steady march of motions and orders, and orders and motions, and the resulting paring-down of live disputes, was remarked upon in the government’s opposition to Trump’s motion for leave to intervene.

“Since President-elect Trump submitted his Motion for Leave to Intervene, this Court has denied Defendants’ motion for emergency relief as to Volume One,” the motion reads. “Additionally, as the Court has noted, the Department of Justice has agreed that the Attorney General should not release Volume Two to the public while Defendants’ criminal cases remain pending. Accordingly, the sole issue still pending before this Court—and therefore the sole issue on which any intervention must focus—is the question of whether the Court should enjoin the Attorney General from allowing the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to review Volume Two in camera, under conditions designed to protect against any material risk of prejudice to the remaining criminal defendants.”

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘The people have a right to know’: Democrats urge Garland to drop ‘tangential’ charges against Trump Mar-a-Lago co-defendants so Jack Smith report can be released in full

And on that last issue, the government claims, Trump simply has no good reason for his attempt to take part in further arguments.

“The case law provides for intervention in criminal cases only in limited circumstances,” the motion goes on. “Some cases limit intervention to situations in which a third party’s constitutional or other federal rights are implicated by the resolution of a particular motion raised in the case, while others look to whether a would-be intervenor has a legitimate interest that he cannot protect without becoming a party. Neither standard can be satisfied here—the Motion for Leave to Intervene identifies no constitutional or other federal right that could justify intervention in this case. Nor can the President-elect establish that he cannot protect his rights without becoming a party to this action.”

To hear the government tell it, the remaining controversy before Cannon just does not have anything to do with any of Trump’s rights – constitutional or federal. And, the government also says, if Trump really wants to keep the second volume of the report from seeing the light of day, he has chosen the wrong procedural vehicle.

“[I]ntervention is unnecessary here, as the Defendants in the case are seeking the identical relief on which the intervention is predicated,” the motion continues. “If the President-elect seeks to prevent the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees from being permitted limited access to Volume Two of the Final Report, he could file his own civil action requesting that relief.”

Source link

The post DOJ aims to keep Trump from intervening in Mar-a-Lago case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Cannon skeptical of delay in alleged Trump assassin case

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:21:40 +0000

Left: Aileen M. Cannon (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida). Right: Ryan Wesley Routh arrested by deputies in Florida on Sept. 15, 2024 (Martin County Sheriff’s Office).

A defense attorney for the man who allegedly attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at his Palm Beach, Florida, golf course asked the judge overseeing the case for a lengthy extension of the pretrial calendar to deal with mountains of discovery.

During the Wednesday hearing, however, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon expressed a decided measure of skepticism at the request — but said she would defer ruling until late this week or early next week.

Earlier this week, Ryan W. Routh, 58, filed a motion asking the court to reset the beginning of trial in the high-profile case from February 2025 to December 2025, citing the potential for a constitutionally-deficient defense should proceedings continue at the current pace.

At the hearing in the provincial Fort Pierce courtroom, Assistant Federal Public Defender Kristy Militello reiterated the case staked out in the 18-page motion to continue trial and revise scheduling.

“We’re still really in the dark,” Militello told the judge, according to a courtroom report by The Palm Beach Post.

Militello and Assistant Federal Public Defender Renee Sihvola said there was an “extraordinary volume” of material, including files sourced from 17 of Routh’s cellular phones, one other phone, and numerous other digital files. That discovery came from federal prosecutors and even more is believed to be on the way.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Randomly assigned to me’ — ‘period’: Annoyed Mar-a-Lago judge defends herself, sees no reason to exit Trump assassination attempt suspect’s case

Then, after a basic review of those files, the documents and videos will be integrated into the defense’s case — which could take several months, according to Routh’s attorneys.

“I don’t have the resources of the FBI,” Militello said, making her case before the Trump-appointed judge, according to a courtroom report by Miami-based NBC affiliate WTVJ. “[It would] take a lawyer a year without sleep or vacation to review all the information in this case.”

Cannon, for her part, was reportedly not convinced.

“I’m not entirely sure the road blocks you’re describing exist to the extent you’re suggesting,” the judge told Routh’s lead attorney.

More Law&Crime coverage: Judge Aileen Cannon emerges as one of the 2024 election’s most influential players — and maybe one of the biggest winners as AG and SCOTUS rumors swirl

Still, the prospect of at least some delay could be in the offing.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley said the government did not generally object to pushing the trial back a bit but chided the defense’s nearly yearlong request for a December 2025 trial date as “wrong on many fronts,” according to the Palm Beach Post.

Shipley said such an extension is “just not feasible,” according to a courtroom report by West Palm Beach-based NBC affiliate WPTV.

In the end, Cannon said she would issue a ruling on the defense motion to continue trial “in the not-too-distant future.”

More Law&Crime coverage: Jack Smith asks 11th Circuit to keep Mar-a-Lago case alive even without Trump — in the name of ‘common sense’

“Discovery delays and the extraordinary volume of discovery have made the current trial schedule incompatible with Mr. Routh’s due process rights,” the motion reads. “The pace and quantity of discovery production, and the need to process disclosed materials into a usable form, prevent counsel at this time from providing a definitive estimate of the number of hours required for review. What is clear, however, is that the diligent efforts of counsel will be insufficient to prepare a case of this magnitude for trial on February 10, 2025. Proceeding with the scheduled trial or anytime soon thereafter — on charges punishable by life imprisonment — would result in a miscarriage of justice.”

In September 2024, Routh, who hails from Hawaii, was arrested in Florida after a Secret Service agent allegedly spotted him with a rifle “in the exterior brush along the fence line near the 6th hole putting green” at the Trump International Golf Club as the former president golfed one hole behind. Authorities have said that the agent opened fire, leading Routh to flee the scene in a Nissan Xterra.

After Routh was caught, federal agents said they found a letter addressed to the “world” stating that “[t]his was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you.” Investigators also said that Routh had been camped out for some 12 hours, apparently waiting for Trump to begin playing golf.

Routh was indicted on charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

Perhaps notably, Routh now literally and figuratively sat in the same defendant’s seat the president-elect once occupied when Cannon oversaw the since-dismissed Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Throughout the pendency of that beleaguered prosecution, Cannon was dogged by complaints that she allowed the codefendants and their allies wide latitude to delay, file frivolous legal documents that push untenable legal theories, push back deadlines, and otherwise engage in dilatory tactics — with an eye toward making sure no trial occurred before the 2024 presidential election.

Jerry Lambe and Matt Naham contributed to this report.

Source link

The post Cannon skeptical of delay in alleged Trump assassin case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Pro-Trump groups join fight against Jack Smith appointment

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 02 Nov 2024 13:08:03 +0000

Left: Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File). Right: Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before departing Manhattan criminal court, Monday, May 6, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, Pool).

The battle over the dismissal of the indictment in the Mar-a-Lago documents case is heating up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, as a group of conservative amici curiae, or friends of the court, on Friday argued to maintain the pro-Donald Trump status quo.

In their 35-page brief in support of the defendants, several right-wing nonprofit groups — led by 501(c)(3) America’s Future — argue that special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed to his position in violation of the appointments and appropriations clauses.

“Because there was no legislation specifically creating an office of Special Counsel when the Attorney General appointed Mr. Smith on November 18, 2022, the challenged appointment must be invalidated because Congress had not established the office of Special Counsel as the Appointments Clause requires,” the filing reads.

As is often the case in the several-months-long litigation over the constitutional vitality of Smith’s appointment, the appropriations clause argument is a knock-on, or derivative, claim. To hear opponents of the special counsel’s office tell it, any spending that occurred after the unlawful appointment is, perforce, also unlawful.

Notably, the appointments and appropriations clauses-related dispute playing out before the court of appeals is almost an exact replica of a prior fight between dueling amici groups when the Mar-a-Lago case was being overseen by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

That fight began with Trump’s own defense citing the clauses in a February motion to dismiss. Then, right-of-center groups, law professors, and legal scholars argued against Smith’s appointment in a deluge of motions practice allowed by the district court. Oppositely, left-of-center law professors, historians, and legal scholars argued Smith was validly — and non-controversially — exercising his authority.

The lower court, of course, famously ordered a kibosh on proceedings based on that novel understanding of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution advanced by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The analysis offered by Thomas came in the landmark ruling where Chief Justice John Roberts issued a broad grant of presidential immunity to Trump.

Thomas was the only justice to cite the long-simmering Appointments Clause issue in an unfavorable light for the government in any of the opinions attached to Trump v. United States. The majority opinion actually lists several ways in which the appointments power inures to the executive’s benefit. Thomas was also the only justice to mention the phrase “Appointments Clause” directly.

In August, Smith filed his opening salvo in a bid to resuscitate the long-beleaguered case. Since then, the 45th president has raised the clauses in an effort to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case.

Now, several of the same amici are back to restate their case before the three-judge panel that will take the first of perhaps several looks at how Cannon squelched the government’s case over the summer.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Correctly dismissed the indictment’: Lawyers, professors, and former prosecutor go to bat for Trump in 11th Circuit filing saying Mar-a-Lago judge did nothing wrong

The crux of the amici’s argument is that Smith is “acting as a principal officer” due to the lack of supervision inherent in his job and because his authority is significant enough “to bind the United States as he executes his responsibilities in the two matters that he has been assigned.”

This wide berth, the motion argues, takes the prosecutor well beyond either mere employee or inferior officer status.

The amici’s constitutional argument here goes on, at length:

The delegation of authority claimed by the Special Counsel presupposes a grant of legislative power to the Attorney General to establish an office of the United States in violation of the Framers’ check on the power of the Executive Branch to create offices by requiring they “be established by Law.” The claimed statutory authority of the Attorney General to create an office that exercises “the full power and independent authority” of a United States Attorney with no effective supervision of or control over the Special Counsel violates the non-delegation doctrine.

In other words, and in substantially similar arguments oft-advanced in the case so far, the litigants contend Smith’s office is so powerful and imbued with such longevity he should have been appointed under the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” rules — akin to a cabinet position, administrative agency head, or life-appointed federal judge.

And, they argue, there’s really nothing like Smith’s role in U.S. history that actually supports the continued firmness of his position. This argument is a direct rejoined to the government’s claims that the special prosecutor in the Richard Nixon/Watergate scandal — and the concomitant court rulings vindicating that prosecutor — inure to Smith’s benefit.

“This nation’s checkered history of appointing Special Prosecutors, Independent Counsel, and Special Counsel provides no consistent or relevant factual pattern that can overcome the constitutional bar to appointing the Special Counsel to an office which has not been ‘established by Law,”” the motion argues. “The examples on which Special Counsel Smith relies are inapposite and cannot overcome the express requirement of the Appointments Clause.”

More Law&Crime coverage: Court to consider former Clinton investigator turned Trump impeachment lawyer’s argument that Judge Cannon ‘correctly dismissed’ Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case

But, as was the case before the district court, soon other amici will join the appellate fight — for and against the indictment’s dismissal.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Pro-Trump groups join fight against Jack Smith appointment appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jack Smith slams latest attempt to stall Mar-a-Lago case

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:25:48 +0000

Left: Former President Donald Trump, center, sits at the defense table at New York Supreme Court, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York City. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool, File); Right: Special counsel Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).

Special counsel Jack Smith urged the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case against former President Donald Trump not to give in to the latest efforts by the defense to further delay proceedings in a pointed motion filed late Monday.

On Monday morning, a defense attorney for the 45th president requested an additional two weeks to file pretrial discovery motions with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon by citing Trump’s need to prepare for his upcoming New York City-based hush-money trial — which is scheduled to begin later this month. Meanwhile, in a different motion docketed Monday but dated March 7, that same defense attorney, Todd Blanche, moved to adjourn the Empire State’s case against Trump until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity issues which are arguably implicated by some of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recently-filed pretrial motions.

“An extension of time such that they receive more than twice the time allotted by the Local Rule is unreasonable,” the motion in opposition reads. “The briefing schedule has been in place for months.”

Cannon previously set a deadline of Thursday, March 14, to submit replies on all of the pending pretrial motions. A hearing is also slated to occur that same morning that will address just some of the many pretrial issues that have consumed and serially delayed the case.

In their federal motion, Trump’s attorneys said they have “no intention of causing unnecessary delay in these proceedings,” and asked for an extension until March 24 to reply to certain motions filed by the government. The defense said it was prepared to file replies on motions to dismiss the indictment based on the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act the day before the March 14 hearing.

In the government’s terse opposition motion, and a footnote, Smith suggests Trump is trying the legal equivalent of the old army game.

“Only now, on the eve of the reply deadline, does the defense complain that it needs more time — mostly based on circumstances about which they have been aware throughout the pendency of their motions: the trial date in New York has been in place since 2022,” the motion reads. The corresponding footnote explains: “Trump has also sought to adjourn the New York trial.”

The former president’s bid to delay further still in the Sunshine State also cites some alleged difficulties being experienced by his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta, Trump’s longtime butler, and Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager.

“Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira are reviewing physical evidence possessed by the Office that is potentially relevant to their reply submissions,” the request to extend the deadlines reads. “Defendant Nauta is in the process of conferring with the Office regarding access to materials relating to grand jury practices in the District of Columbia that are relevant to his reply in support of pending selective and vindictive prosecution motion.”

Smith dismisses Nauta and De Oliveira’s concerns out of hand.

“[T]he evidence DeOliveira will inspect tomorrow has been available to them since the Government first provided them discovery,” the government’s opposition motion retorts. “Nauta fails to explain how any questions about grand jury practice in the District of Columbia could affect his reply briefing and why he has waited until now to seek this information.”

Trump’s earlier Monday filing also complains that in order to travel to Florida for the March 14 hearing, the defense is losing “time we would otherwise use to prepare the other reply submissions.”

Again, Smith argues that is not a valid basis to shift the deadlines.

“And the fact that the defense must travel to Florida for a hearing on Thursday is not unique to those teams and poses no cause for such delay,” the government’s motion concludes. “The Court should deny the defendants’ motion.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Jack Smith slams latest attempt to stall Mar-a-Lago case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jack Smith says Trump should not get certain discovery docs

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:02:23 +0000

Left: Former President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File). Right: Special counsel Jack Smith. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin). Inset: Judge Aileen M. Cannon (U.S. Senate).

Special counsel Jack Smith ridiculed a “conspiracy theory” recently advanced by former President Donald Trump about the genesis of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case in a Monday court filing.

Earlier this month, the 45th president filed a motion requesting “discovery and a hearing concerning selective and vindictive prosecution.” Trump’s attorneys argue that a separate special counsel’s decision not to indict President Joe Biden over his own retention of classified documents shows the Department of Justice is discriminating against their client and acting with “political animus.”

On Monday, in a filing stylized as a surreply, Smith also referenced special counsel Robert Hur’s decision not to indict Biden.

“They contend that the incumbent president has secretly directed this prosecution — using the Special Counsel as a ‘puppet’ or ‘stalking horse,”” the filing reads. “In order to retaliate against Trump for exercising his right to criticize him and run against him.”

To hear Trump tell it, such allegations necessitate the production of discovery that will help the defense claim that the entire prosecution is corrupt and the case should be dismissed.

Smith’s office says there isn’t anything like that to discover.

“[T]he sources on which they rely, even if taken at face value, undercut rather than support this conspiracy theory, as they repeatedly emphasize that the prosecutorial decisions made by the Department of Justice generally, and the Special Counsel specifically, have been made on the basis of the facts and the law, not political considerations,” the filing reads. “The defendants offer no evidence to the contrary, because there is no such evidence.”

And, the government argues, the defense is also confused about where the relevant alleged bias comes from in the first place.

“[T]he defendants’ baseless theory that the prosecutorial decisions in this case have been made by the incumbent president, communicating his direction via the news media, is inconsistent with their requests for discovery,” the filing goes on.

The latest discovery requests lodged by Trump following the decision not to charge Biden are a “fishing expedition” and should be denied by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, Smith’s office says.

“[T]he defendants have not, and cannot, satisfy the requirements for discovery on a claim of either selective or vindictive prosecution,” the government’s 12-page Monday filing argues.

In order to sustain a claim of selective prosecution, a criminal defendant has to show that someone “similarly situated” was not prosecuted — but could have been prosecuted because the evidence against the non-prosecuted person was the same or better than the prosecuted person making the selective prosecution claim.

And here, Smith says, the ex-president and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta, Trump’s longtime butler, and Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager, have failed to identify any such person.

“[T]here has never been a case in American history in which a former official has engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s,” the government’s filing argues. “He intentionally took possession of a vast trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive documents — documents so sensitive that they were presented to the President — and stored them in unsecured locations at his heavily trafficked social club.”

The filing then offers a thorough rundown of the allegations:

When the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) initially sought their return (before learning that they contained classified national defense information), Trump delayed, obfuscated, and dissembled. Faced with the possibility of legal action, he ostensibly agreed to comply with NARA’s requests but in fact engaged in additional deception, returning only a fraction of the documents in his possession while claiming that his production was complete. Then, when presented with a grand jury subpoena demanding the return of the remaining documents bearing classification markings, Trump attempted to enlist his own attorney in the corrupt endeavor, suggesting that he falsely tell the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have any documents, and suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents rather than produce them to the government. Failing in his effort to corrupt the attorney, Trump enlisted his trusted body man, codefendant Waltine Nauta, in a scheme to deceive the attorney by moving boxes to conceal his (Trump’s) continued possession of classified documents. As a result, Trump, through his attorney, again returned only a portion of the classified documents in his possession while falsely claiming that his production was complete. The obstructive conduct even persisted from there. In June 2022, knowing that he had arranged for Nauta to move boxes to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, and knowing that the government had subpoenaed the security video footage that would reveal that surreptitious box movement, Trump, now joined by not only Nauta but also codefendant Carlos De Oliveira, attempted to have the information-technology manager at Mar-aLago delete the video footage that would show the movement of boxes.

“The defendants have not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted,” assistant special counsel David Harbach writes in the filing. “Nor could they.”

Citing Biden as the defendants’ “primary comparator,” the government argues the cases are completely different.

“Trump, unlike Biden, is alleged to have engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents bearing classification markings,” the filing goes on. “And the evidence concerning the two men’s intent — whether they knowingly possessed and willfully retained such documents — is also starkly different.”

Last week, Trump again lashed out at Smith — directly calling the prosecutor an arm of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign.

Smith has yet to reply to that missive.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Jack Smith says Trump should not get certain discovery docs appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Smith hits back at Trump attorneys discovery requests

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 03 Feb 2024 05:54:47 +0000

Left: Former President Donald Trump, center, sits at the defense table at New York Supreme Court, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York City. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool, File)./Right: Special counsel Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).

Special counsel Jack Smith revealed new details on the roots of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, saying the government “confronted an extraordinary situation: a former President engaging in calculated and persistent obstruction of the collection of Presidential records.”

The case stems from Trump’s indictment in the Southern District of Florida accusing him of mishandling and illegally retaining classified and sensitive records after leaving office, including storing them in his bathroom and shower at Mar-a-Lago and allegedly showing them off at his golf club.

Smith’s filing on Friday, which was in response to Trump’s motion to compel discovery from Smith’s team, explained the response when the government learned Trump allegedly possessed the classified documents.

By law, the classified documents belong to the United States, Smith wrote, “for the benefit of history and posterity, and, as a matter of fact, here included a trove of highly classified documents containing some of the nation’s most sensitive information.”

“The law required that those documents be collected. And the record establishes that the relevant government officials performed their tasks with professionalism and patience in the face of unprecedented defiance,” Smith wrote in the filing.

The motion from Trump’s lawyers included conspiracy-theory-laden accusations at special counsel Jack Smith including claims that prosecutors are hiding evidence. As Law&Crime reported last week, Trump has doubled down on claims that his Florida-based prosecution is part of a conspiracy that encompasses the federal government and media organizations.

Smith and his team of prosecutors, Trump attorney Christopher Kise wrote, are seeking to “avert its eyes from exculpatory evidence in the hands of the senior officials” not just at the Archives but at numerous agencies like, he claims, FBI, the Justice Department, the White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Energy, the National Security Agency, the State Department and others.

In response, Smith asked the court to deny the defendants’ multiple requests for evidence of “improper coordination” with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and of “bias and investigative misconduct,” saying the claims are not material to the defense and that some of the requests seek evidence that does not exist or is not within the government’s possession.

Smith also wanted U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to deny discovery related to Trump’s security clearance with the Department of Energy, evidence about secure facilities at President Donald Trump’s residences, and materials concerning the search of Mar-a-Lago and CCTV footage.

“The defendants have received substantial, timely, and thorough discovery in this case,” the document said. “By early September 2023, the government had provided the defendants with over 1.28 million pages of unclassified discovery and all of the CCTV footage obtained in the investigation; since then, the government has supplemented its production as necessary. This production not only complies with the government’s constitutional and rule-based discovery obligations; it goes far beyond.”

Smith argued Trump’s lawyers have filed a lengthy motion seeking “abstract rulings” on the scope of the prosecution team and various directives that the government provides them with a range of additional materials.

“The motion should be denied as legally and factually flawed,” Smith’s filing said. “Instead of meeting those standards, the defendants’ motion seeks non-discoverable materials based on speculative, unsupported, and false theories of political bias and animus.”

“Many of the requests are so generalized that it is difficult to decipher what they seek,” Smith continues. “Others reflect pure conjecture detached from the facts surrounding this prosecution. For still others, the government has already furnished the defendants with what they seek to the extent that the law requires.”

The news came after Smith and Cannon held a three-hour ex-parte hearing — outside the presence of the other party — to evaluate classified filings by Smith being sought by Trump and his co-defendants.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 41 counts of mishandling documents as well as obstructing justice and making false statements and representations and charges related to destroying or attempting to alter or destroy an object

Trump and two co-conspirators — Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira — have also pleaded not guilty. The trial is currently slated for May 20.

Law&Crime’s Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Smith hits back at Trump attorneys discovery requests appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.