U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has delivered a significant win to former President Donald Trump in the lawsuit brought against him by Jack Smith.
The special counsel sought to compel Trump to disclose documents related to his defense strategy, specifically regarding whether he intended to hold his attorneys responsible, a move that legal experts argued would breach attorney-client privilege.
Legal analyst Katie Phang of MSNBC remarked that Judge Cannon’s rejection of this request dealt a major setback to Smith.
According to the expert, Judge Cannon has issued an order denying Special Counsel’s Motion to Compel Disclosure Regarding Advice-of-Counsel Defense.
The judge believes it is premature in the litigation process to require Donald Trump to reveal this information.
In his order, Judge Cannon states that if circumstances warrant a request for disclosure of an advice-of-counsel trial defense, it should be considered only after certain steps in the legal proceedings have been completed, such as resolving pre-trial motions and providing necessary exhibits and witness lists to the defendants.
Joyce Vance, former US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, stated during an interview on X that Cannon is likely to postpone the case until after the election and potentially prevent it from ever taking place.
“In the Mar-a-Lago case, Judge Cannon has just refused to enforce a routine deadline & it’s entirely clear she has no intention of letting this case go to trial before the election or possibly ever,” she wrote.
“So I think this is the key question because Trump’s overall strategy is one of delay, get everything past the election, hope that you win, and you can resolve everything from the Oval Office in your favor. And I think it’s been a little baffling to watch some of the judges like Aileen Cannon in the Florida Mar-a-Lago related criminal prosecution, where she has been playing slow ball trying to keep that case from going anywhere,” she said last week to Phang on MSNBC.
Smith is facing difficulties in more than just this case. During a recent federal appeals court hearing on whether Donald Trump is immune to prosecution, one of the judges directed a question towards a prosecutor from special counsel Jack Smith’s team.
As reported by The Hill, Judge Karen Henderson questioned James Pearce, a prosecutor with Smith’s team, “over how the panel’s decision could prevent a torrent of legal matters brought against former presidents.”
“How do we write an opinion that would stop the floodgates?” she asked.
Pearce contended that the Watergate scandal, which implicated former President Richard Nixon, marked a turning point in society’s acknowledgement that presidents can be held accountable for their actions.
Despite Nixon’s resignation and lack of prosecution for his alleged involvement in the scandal, Pearce argued that there has been a widespread recognition that presidents are not immune from prosecution.
Furthermore, Pearce emphasized that the investigations and prosecutions initiated by the Biden administration against Trump should not be seen as a radical shift towards pursuing legal action against future presidents.
Instead, he asserted that these indictments against Trump are unique and reflect the extraordinary nature of the charges brought against him.
“Never in our nation’s history, until this case, has a president claimed immunity extends beyond his time in office,” Pearce said, though the Jan. 6 indictments stem from Trump’s time while still president.
The charges against him involving his alleged improper retention of classified documents, however, fit Pearce’s argument, but that presumes that Trump’s actions violated federal law, including the broad powers he has to declassify documents under the Presidential Records Act.
At another point, Trump lawyer John Sauer pushed back on Judge Florence Pan after she “pointed out that Trump’s legal team made very different arguments when he was facing his second impeachment, saying that criminal prosecution lies with the courts,” The Hill reported.
In his response, he stated that regardless of whether a concession was made at the time or not, it holds no significance as the current proceedings are distinctly different.
ICYMI: Anthony Fauci Finally Admits the Truth About Evidence Behind COVID Guidelines
