Jack Smith showing frustration with judge in Trump case

 March 15, 2024

Thursday, CNN host John Berman asserted that, based on recent court filings by members of special counsel Jack Smith's team, the latter's "frustration" with Judge Aileen Cannon appeared to be spilling over.

Berman raised the contention put forth by Trump's attorneys during an interview with former federal prosecutor Donya Perry that he possessed the legal authority to remove America's nuclear secrets from his possession upon leaving office in January 2021, as Raw Story reported.

Perry stated that the argument presented an obviously incorrect interpretation of the law and was taken aback by the fact that Cannon gave Trump's attorneys an entire day to present what appears to be a losing case.

Court Commentary

"This is the kind of thing I ordinarily would have expected to have been decided on the papers," she said, meaning that there should be no need for Cannon to call oral arguments for it.

"Instead, the judge has allocated, I believe, an entire day for arguments, so that seems a fair amount of argument there. Also, I believe she has reserved time for this selective or malicious prosecution argument that is really a non-argument."

These claims led Perry to conclude that Judge Cannon is "giving a lot of deference to the former president and his legal team" that is "a lot more than a lot of people think is merited, or that a lot of other judges would give in this situation."

More Agreement

Following Perry's assessment, Berman joined in to support it, citing the prosecutors' response to Cannon's actions as evidence.

"You can almost read the frustration from Jack Smith and his legal team in their filings," he argued.

This evaluation arrives mere days after former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy stated on Monday that the case that would "blow up" Smith's prosecution of former President Donald Trump is "missed" by many.

In August, Smith obtained a four-count indictment against Trump in connection with the former president's endeavors to contest the outcomes of the 2020 election.

Supreme Court Arguements

Oral arguments in Fischer v. United States, a case involving the obstruction statute that was the subject of Smith's August indictment against Trump, have been scheduled for April at the Supreme Court.

“The case to keep your eye on is the obstruction case,” McCarthy told “America’s Newsroom” co-host Bill Hemmer.

“We miss it because Trump is not a party to that case. They are looking at the same statute that is key to Smith’s prosecution of Trump in Washington, and if they — as I expect they may, if they — if they say the Justice Department has not been correctly applying that statute, that’s going to have a catastrophic impact for Smith on his indictment.”

Hundreds of individuals who participated in the disturbance at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021 have been charged by the Justice Department with violating 18 USC Section 1512(c)(2), obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, punishable by up to twenty years in prison.

“The D.C. Circuit’s expansion of Section 1512(c)(2) beyond evidence impairment to protests at the seat of government thus conflicts with the interpretations of other courts of appeal limiting the scope of the same statute,” attorneys for Joseph Fischer, who was charged in connection with the Capitol riot, wrote in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court.

In a 2016 unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a conviction that Smith had obtained against Virginia's then-Republican governor, Bob McDonnell.

" A free people [claim] their rights, as derived from the laws of nature."
Thomas Jefferson
© 2015 - 2024 Conservative Institute. All Rights Reserved.