Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman got into a sparring match with Donald Trump ally Mike Davis on Twitter Thursday over the implications of the former president's case being tried in South Florida rather than Washington, D.C.
The origin of the argument involved the Supreme Court's decision this week that settled a jurisdictional issue that had been considered a potential roadblock for special counsel Jack Smith as he mulled trying Trump in DC or Miami.
"Oh my -- Court just issued opinion in the venue case that was making DOJ/Smith nervous, and held that a defendant tried in the wrong venue CAN BE RETRIED in the proper one," wrote Litman. "Meaning no real downside to have brought the MAL case in DC, where among other things are no judges named Cannon."
Davis quickly attacked Litman's analysis.
"Translation: @harrylitman thinks Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland and his Special Counsel Jack Smith should've intentionally filed Trump charges in the wrong venue (DC instead of SDFL). To get 2 bites at the apple," wrote Davis. "The Democrats' transparent gamesmanship is breathtaking."
But Litman quickly slapped back.
"@mrddmia such a cheap shot for you, & totally inaccurate," he wrote. "The venue rules provide for multiple possible correct venues. Q is whether DC and Fla both good. see § 3237. you don't normally play in the gutter like this in my experience. your passions must be getting the better of you."
The Trump case, which concerns the illegal retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago country club, had a question hanging over it from the start over the federal court in which to file it: Washington, D.C., where the documents were removed from, or South Florida, where the documents were stored and concealed from authorities. Smith ultimately moved to file in South Florida, possibly because Trump would likely have moved to have the case transferred to South Florida anyway, potentially causing lengthy delays.
One consequence is that the case has been assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, a controversial Trump-appointed district judge who previously tried to obstruct the review of the documents and was reprimanded by the appellate court for doing so. She has not given any indication she intends to recuse herself from the case
