Special Counsel Jack Smith, 54, gets that sinking feeling, that his two cases against 77-year-old former President Donald Trump are falling apart. When it comes to Smith’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, he criticized Judge Eileen Cannon who said last week that she’s inclined to honor defense requests for a delay in the trial date. U.S. Atty. Joyce Vance said the Cannon’s criticism of Smith’s timetable for the trial seems “off base,” pitting Cannon against the Justice Department. “Many people have the sense that Judge Cannon has her thumb on the scale for Trump,” Vance said, knowing she’s further alienated the Trump-appointed judge. Smith’s office has been pressuring Judge Cannon to start the Mar-a-Lago classified doc’s case against Trump at the earliest possible time. Cannon sees a kind of prosecutors’ zealotry not appropriate for the Special Counsel or Justice Department.
Whatever the backlash, Vance seems inclined to pressure Cannon to follow the DOJ’s schedule on prosecuting Trump. “Perhaps Judge Cannon needs to remember that this case is about alleged crimes regarding the treatments of highly classified documents by a former president—allegations that are backed by evidence collected during execution of a court-ordered search warrant,” Vance said, once again, insulting Judge Cannon. It makes you wonder whether elements in the DOJ are trying hard to sabotage their case against Trump. “Instead, it seems to have devolved into an inexplicable grudge match with the Special Counsel’s office on her part,” Vance said, knowing that her opinions are bound to affect Cannon’s rulings. Prosecutors and defense counsel need to watch their tongues before any trial takes place. If Smith cares about the outcome, he needs to muzzle his prosecutors.
When it comes to the Mar-a-Lago classified documents’ case, Smith said June 9 that Trump endangered U.S. national security. How could worthless old classified documents endanger U.S. national security when they were packed in moving boxes and kept in Trump’s secure Mar-a-Lago basement? Smith’s statements go beyond a federal prosecutor, making political statements against Trump. How would Smith’s statements differ from any biased statements against Trump made on liberal network and cable news shows? Smith knows that he has an uphill convincing a jury that Trump knew anything about the contents of moving boxes, tucked away in his Mar-a-Lago basement. Listening to Smith opine about Trump after indicting the former president shows the degree of Smith’s prejudice against Trump. Smith must convince a jury that Trump knew what was inside boxes stored at Mar-a-Lago.
Smith’s cases involving Jan. 6 Capitol riots or Mar-a-Lag classified documents show the same prosecutors’ zealotry that makes the public think charges against Trump are all political. When it comes to charges against Trump by the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, he went out of his way to charge Trump with 37 felonies, upgrading all charges from misdemeanors. Bragg ran in 2021 on a promise to prosecute Trump, when his predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., decided to not to. So when it comes to New York officials prosecuting Trump, especially Atty. Gen. Letitia James, the cases against Trump look entirely politically. Liberal media types want Trump prosecuted, not because he’s guilty but because New York wants to prevent Trump from running for president. When you look at the federal cases against Trump, they’re more flimsy than the two cases in New York or election case in Georgia.
Prosecuting Trump for the Jan. 6 Capitol riots is even more speculative than Cannon’s classified docs’ case. Whether Smith can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump endangered, as Smith says, U.S. national security, Smith already showed his bias with Judges Tanya S. Chutkan that she’s trying to convict Trump of planning and organizing Capitol riots. Smith knows he can’t convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump planned and orchestrated the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. “Biased or not, Cannon simply doesn’t have the game, and she masks it with prickly remonstrations of the government,” former U.S. Atty. Harry Litman said on Twitter. “She needs to go back to judges’ school . . ” said NYU law professor Stephen Gillers, showing his extreme bias against Trump. Whatever the merits of any cases against Trump, the prejudice runs deep.
Liberal news networks and pundits like Gillers show that Trump can’t really get a fair trial with the entire press and legal establishment against him. When you look at the merits of the cases, the government would have been better off working with voters to see Trump defeated in 2024. If Trump wins all his cases, it will be a painful embarrassment to the Special Prosecutor and DOJ. Smith doesn’t have the facts to convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt on Jan. 6 Capitol riots or the Mar-a-Lago classified docs’ case. When it comes to the two cases in New York, both cases show undeniable politics with Manhattan DA Alivin Bragg and State Atty. Gen. Letitia James. As for the Atlanta racketeering case for election interference, it’s a real legal stretch against Trump. If Trump beats all his cases, it will propel him like rocket fuel in the 2024 election back to the White House.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in nation and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
