Jack Smith's 'fateful' decision could have crashed his classified documents case: report

Special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to indict Donald Trump in Florida rather than Washington, D.C. has turned out to be a “fateful one” that could end up being the point that the case against him crashed, CNN wrote Monday.

A comparison between the judges in D.C. and the Florida jurist assigned the case, Aileen Cannon, showed “vastly different approaches,” with Cannon’s handling being criticized for slow progress that seems often sympathetic to the former president.

“Those approaches became apparent in the past week as opinions were unsealed from two D.C. federal judges indicating how much more quickly and harshly for Trump the case might have played out had it remained in Washington,” the report stated.

In recently unsealed opinions, D.C. Judge James “Jeb” Boasbert and his predecessor, Judge Beryl Howell — who had been involved in the case before it was sent to Florida — show “deep skepticism” for Trump arguments involving attorney-client privilege and secrecy around the grand jury that Cannon has now spent months considering — without reaching a decision.

Cannon's inability to rule on these, as well as other motions before her, have resulted in the case against the former president being put on indefinite hold — and it will almost certainly now not be heard before the November election.

Another example of the slow pace of the Florida judge compared to those in D.C. came last Friday when prosecutors asked Cannon to rule on a request for a gag order following comments that the FBI was told to use deadly force during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home in 2022.

ALSO READ: 'Oh, come on!' Tommy Tuberville dismisses Trump connection to 'unified Reich' video

Cannon has yet to respond — though D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the election interference case against Trump, wasted no time gagging him from commenting on witnesses months ago, CNN pointed out.

The case involving the storing of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago started in D.C. but the Department of Justice transferred it to Miami before charging Trump because much of the alleged criminal actions happened there.

“Cannon is now being asked to re-examine fundamental portions of the case that Howell and Boasberg had already ruled on, including prosecutors’ ability to secure testimony in the DC grand jury from Trump’s former attorney Evan Corcoran,” CNN reported.

“Trump’s team is seeking to cut that testimony out of the prosecutors’ case entirely — an approach that might have been harder for the defense if the case had stayed in DC.

“Last year, Howell ordered Corcoran to testify in front of the grand jury after finding that his conversations with Trump were not protected by attorney-client privilege because they were in furtherance of a crime. Corcoran’s testimony ended up informing key portions of the indictment against Trump and included detailed accounts of Trump’s alleged efforts to keep the classified materials hidden from federal authorities.

“Bradley Moss, a DC-based lawyer with extensive national security experience, said that the ruling from Howell provided Cannon a “clear road map” to consider the attorney-client privilege issues.

“But Cannon hasn’t even scheduled a hearing on the topic, which the parties began arguing over in court papers in February. 'That she continues to sit on the matter is inexcusable,' Moss said.”

The report also noted that Howell had made many pre-indictment rulings that went against Trump — the same questions that Cannon is now slowly re-considering.

“Cannon, a Trump appointee confirmed to the bench in late 2020, has far less experience than the D.C. court handling cases where high-stakes political implications intersect with national security interests,” CNN reported.

“... 'Simply greater exposure to this litigation process alone speaks to the speed and detail with which these two DC judges handled these matters in comparison to Judge Cannon,” Moss said.