Special counsel Jack Smith criticizes Judge Aileen Cannon's understanding of the case and opposes her request for jury instructions that support Trump's claims of authority over classified documents.
Special counsel Jack Smith criticizes Judge Aileen Cannon 's handling of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. Smith argues that the judge's understanding of the case is fundamentally flawed and has no basis in law or fact. He also opposes Cannon's request for jury instructions that support Trump's claims of broad authority over classified documents .
Smith's team plans to seek an appeals court review if the judge accepts Trump's arguments about his record-retention powers
Special Counsel Jack Smith Judge Aileen Cannon Classified Documents Case Former President Donald Trump Jury Instructions Espionage Act Law Fact Review Record-Retention Powers
Norge Siste Nytt, Norge Overskrifter
Similar News:Du kan også lese nyheter som ligner på denne som vi har samlet inn fra andre nyhetskilder.
Special counsel files response to judge's order in Trump documents caseThe judge's order could have far-reaching implications in the case.
Les mer »
Hunter Biden attorney slams 'abnormal way' Special Counsel Weiss handled case after judge denies dismissalHunter Biden’s attorney blasted the decision to dismiss tax charges against the first son, saying they will continue to fight the 'abnormal way' Special Counsel David Weiss has handled the case.
Les mer »
Numbers in special counsel report refute Trump's claim that Biden had 'more documents'Biden had 88 documents, while Trump had about 340 documents.
Les mer »
Judge Criticizes Trump on CNN Over Remarks About Other Judge's DaughterSee multiple perspectives from The Epoch Times, The Hill, and CNN (Online News) at AllSides.com.
Les mer »
Judge Bars Trump from Making Public Comments about Judge's FamilyA New York judge has issued an order barring former President Donald Trump from making public comments about the judge's family. The judge stated that such comments would interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitute a direct attack on the Rule of Law.
Les mer »