Staff Reports
Judge Aileen Cannon has cancelled a hearing requested by Special Counsel Jack Smith to discuss a protective order for classified evidence in the case involving former President Trump's documents, according to a recent CNN report. This is a setback for Smith, and some critics interpret it as an indication that he has abandoned the rule of law.
US District Judge Aileen Cannon has canceled tentative plans to hold a hearing on August 25 on a protective order for classified evidence in the Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Donald Trump. https://t.co/fZyOWFzGHv
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 17, 2023
Intriguingly, a distinct grand jury in Washington, D.C. is investigating Trump's handling of classified documents, despite the charges being brought against him in the Southern District of Florida. Judge Cannon expressed concern over this, and she requested briefs from both parties regarding the use of a grand jury from another district.
Could Special Counsel Jack Smith maneuver around Judge Cannon and bring a second documents case against President Trump at Washington, D.C.? https://t.co/TW0Ch6GD3Y
— The New York Sun (@NewYorkSun) August 19, 2023
A.R. Hoffman, editor of the New York Sun, suggests that Smith may be attempting a "escape hatch" from Cannon by bringing another case in Washington, D.C. This action would provide Smith with a more favourable jury pool, comprised of individuals from a Democratic stronghold as opposed to a conservative stronghold. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the current case against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., has been accused of political bias by Republicans.
In the meantime, legal scholar Jonathan Turley has criticised Smith's actions, arguing that he undermines the First Amendment by attempting to criminalise constitutionally protected speech. According to Turley, the indictment against Trump is founded on First Amendment-protected allegations of spreading false information and undermining the integrity of the election. Turley anticipates that the courts will view these accusations with scepticism.
This development highlights the legal complexities surrounding the case against former President Trump and raises concerns regarding political bias and the protection of free speech.
Opinion: It is extremely disturbing that Special Counsel Jack Smith appears to circumvent the rule of law by pursuing a favourable jury pool and possibly criminalising constitutionally protected speech. This case seems to be motivated by politics rather than the pursuit of justice. It is essential that we protect the First Amendment and ensure that our legal proceedings are equitable.
