Special Counsel Jack Smith is apparently in a tight spot, figuratively speaking, regarding the Donald Trump trial. Multiple reports describe his current predicament as being a “no-win situation” specifically if he decides to react to the latest ruling passed by the judge.
Judge Cannon Criticized For Case-Related Decisions, Accused Of Favoritism
Judge Aileen Cannon, the federal judge assigned to oversee the case involving Donald Trump’s classified records, has faced a considerable amount of harsh criticism for her decisions.
Donald Trump nominated Judge Cannon to the bench during his time spent in the Oval Office. In addition, Cannon has been accused on multiple occasions of showing favoritism to the former U.S. President.
Cannon’s Decision Reactivates Smith’s Desire For Her Removal From The Case
The decision recently made by Cannon has reportedly reignited Smith’s desire to have her removed from the case all together. It focuses on Trump and his lawyers.
Their disputed arguments were placed in a motion to dismiss. The motion stated that the Presidential Records Act made it possible for the Republican to have undisputed authority over retaining classified documents as his personal property. This would essentially mean that Trump did not violate any law within the White House in January 2021.
Cannon Asked Office Teams Of Trump, Smith To Turn In ‘Competing Scenarios’
Judge Cannon submitted a request on Monday to the lawyers of both Donald Trump and Jack Smith’s office team. The request was for both teams to turn in their “competing scenarios.”
The scenarios would have to lay out the possible jury instructions that would have come from it.
Interpretation Of Presidential Records Acts Played Key Role In Jury Selection
The possibly jury instructions were reportedly focused on the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act. These instructions included whether the president had “sole authority” or not in their work.
The instructions included identifying whether the jurors agreed that a president should have “sole authority” if he wants to categorize various records as “personal or presidential” during his term in the Oval Office.
Decision Criticized As Alleged Leaning Of Jury In Favor Of Donald Trump
The overall move has received a lot of criticism. This is especially since they are asking the jurors to lean towards the Donald Trump’s views regarding the Presidential Records Act. On the other hand, it could allow quick access for Cannon to dismiss the entire case.
In that scenario, there would not be a need to go back to Smith to give him a chance to file an appeal. Smith would have basically filed for a chance against any decision within the US Courts of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Former Federal Prosecutor Describes Judge Cannon’s Ruling As ‘Bizarre’
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani stated in a recent interview with Newsweek that they found Judge Cannon’s ruling to be “bizarre” in nature. They further explained that it was additional evidence of “another instance that clearly benefits Trump.”
Rahmani continued by stating that it “clearly benefits Trump.” In addition, it showed that Cannon was “in over her head as a judge.” According to Rahmani, the issue is still a “question of law” that they should decide.
Rahmani Says Judge Cannon Is ‘In Over Her Head As A Judge’
Rahmani further expressed her belief that Judge Cannon is “in over her head as a judge.” The issue, according to Rahmani, was the “question of law” that she would be able to decide as the judge.
Rahmani confirmed that it was “not a question of fact for the jury.” She added that Jack Smith is apparently “in a no-win situation.”
Former Federal Prosecutor Agrees ‘Appeal Or Writ Will Delay The Trial Even Further’
Rahmani stated that any “appeal or writ” filed will cause a significant delay. That delay would push the trial start date out even farther than it is already scheduled.
According to Rahmani, Smith could not allow Cannon to “abdicate her responsibility” as the judge either. Doing so would “make the possibility of jury nullification even more real.”
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Believes Cannon ‘Crossed The Line’
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman reportedly made a similar claim as Rahmani did. Litman explained that Cannon “truly crossed the line into running interference” for Trump with her latest big decision.
Litman was reportedly in office as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1998 to 2001. He served during the Clinton administration.
Litman Believes That ‘Cannon May Have Hit Upon A Strategy’ That Delays Trump Trial
Litman also wrote that Judge Aileen Cannon “may have hit upon a strategy that gives Trump the delay he wants.” Litman added that he would then likely dismiss the case “once a jury has been sworn in.”
More importantly, according to Litman, she would have never exposed herself as being “forced off the case by the 11th Circuit” or “being reined in.”
Litman Claims That Smith Has Two ‘Tricky’ Choices To Consider
As part of the “no-win situation,” Litman also explained that he feels Smith has a tough decision to make himself. All that is involved apparently left Smith “facing a tricky choice.”
Litman explained that Smith could “adhere to the letter of the judge’s order and acquiesce.” On the other hand, he could just “refuse to go along.”
What Happens If Smith Refuses To ‘Go Along’ With Decision?
If Smith refuses to go along and opts to put up a fight, then Litman believes he would “risk Cannon’s ire.” However, it would allow him to “try to position the prosecution to appeal if she actually does something reviewable.”
Litman agrees that it is “not an easy call” either way. That is especially the case simply because “the umpire seems to be playing for the other team.”
Trump Critic Wants Smith To File Motion To Recuse Cannon Regardless Of Delay
Trump critic Joyce Vance reportedly wants Smith to proceed with filing the motion to recuse the judge from the case – even if that means there will be a delay.
“Filing a motion for recusal now would almost certainly mean the case can’t be tried ahead of the election.” It would essentially be better to run the risk of the delay than giving Judge Cannon the chance to “derail the prosecution in a way that would give her the final say over the fate of the case,” according to Vance’s Civil Discourse blog.
Vance Claims It Would Be ‘Better To Run The Risk Of Delay’
Vance strongly believes that it would be “better to run the risk of delay that it would be to give Cannon the opportunity to derail the prosecution.” Any derailment would likely give Cannon the case without any delay or hesitation.
That type of derailment would also “give her the final say over the fate of the case.”
