Trump Judge Considers Tossing Key Evidence in Docs Case

( – Judge Aileen Cannon is the federal Florida judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s presidential records case and on June 27th, she ordered a separate hearing to determine if prosecutors with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office violated Trump’s attorney-client privileges.

The crux of the matter are written notes made by former Trump attorney Evan Corcoran which were then used to secure the indictment against Trump over records he took upon leaving office. Trump maintains the documents were his personal presidential records. Smith has alleged Trump took classified information he was not entitled to and refused to return it when requests were made by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Critics of the case have suggested that NARA was operating as a partisan political actor when they then proceeded to suggest criminal charges to the Department of Justice. Unsealed documents in the case revealed that NARA officials were monitoring Trump’s exit “like the FBI” in an attempt to hoist criminal allegations. We all know what happened afterward.

Cannon’s 11-page decision ruled that there would be an additional hearing to resolve “factual disputes” regarding the use of the notes as evidence. The notes have been a major component of the document case. The question was previously addressed by a Washington, D.C. judge who ruled that they were not protected, but D.C.’s courts are far more left-leaning than Florida’s and Cannon isn’t beholden to their pronouncements.

Cannon shot down prosecutors’ claims that the hearing would become a “mini-trial.” She highlighted that the purpose of the hearing was to resolve “factual and legal issues” still in dispute regarding the notes.

Cannon will also consider claims that the search warrant on Mar-A-Lago contained “ambiguities” regarding the evidence seized. Typically, search warrants are incredibly specific in what is to be taken; in this case, the warrant targeted “national defense information” and “presidential records” which the defense has argued were incredibly vague and overbroad descriptions not consistent with legal tradition.

Copyright 2024,