In the case concerning Donald Trump's handling of classified documents, Judge Aileen Cannon has questioned the extent of oversight Attorney General Merrick Garland has over Special Counsel Jack Smith. This inquiry arises amidst ongoing legal proceedings, focusing on the independence of the special counsel.
Trump attorney Emil Bove highlighted Garland’s previous statement of having “no coordination” with Smith regarding another criminal case against Trump, related to alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Smith’s team, led by Pearce, countered by asserting that Smith’s appointment was a legitimate exercise of Garland’s authority, adhering to Justice Department regulations.
These exchanges took place at the start of a three-day series of hearings led by Judge Cannon. The proceedings will continue, with Monday’s session addressing Trump’s claim that Smith is improperly funded by an indefinite Justice Department budget.
Judge Cannon’s approach, delving into issues largely dismissed by other courts, has puzzled the legal community and drawn criticism. Unusually, Cannon allowed three external experts to present their arguments, a rarity in criminal cases.
Previously, in 2022, Cannon had halted the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents, a decision overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After Smith charged Trump in June 2023, Cannon was assigned to oversee the case and has since postponed the trial date indefinitely.
Throughout the hearing, Trump’s attorneys argued for disbanding Smith’s operation, suggesting it represented a “shadow government.” Cannon questioned attorneys from both sides about their interpretations of federal statutes and the historical use of special prosecutors, referencing the Supreme Court ruling that ordered President Nixon to hand over tapes during Watergate.
Smith’s attorneys maintained that the ruling and several appellate decisions validated Smith’s appointment, while Trump’s legal team disagreed.
No comments:
Post a Comment