Trump requested a delay in the June 8 deadline to disclose what experts the defense may call at the trial. The legal team asked Cannon for an extension on the trial deadline.
Screen captures of the court website posted by Guardian investigative reporter Hugo Lowell show Cannon accepted the demand. Lowell remarked that Trump previously commented in the filing, "Should there be one," meaning a trial.
Read also: A criminologist explains why Judge Cannon must step away from Trump trial immediately
On Monday, Cannon removed paragraph 36 from the Trump indictment, The Washington Post reported. The paragraph says Trump showed a classified document to someone who didn't have proper clearance.
Cannon argued the paragraph was "inappropriate because it is not connected to a specific crime that Trump is accused of committing," the Post paraphrased.
The move prompted questions from legal analysts about Cannon's next move.
"Why am I getting the vibe that Cannon is going to determine Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful, thereby temporarily scuttling every pros he has against Trump until the Circuit overturns her?" asked civil rights lawyer Andrew C. Laufer.
Conservatives have argued that the special counsel's appointment was unlawful because the Constitution bars Smith's appointment, as he is employed by the Justice Department and not an official.
Thus, he "fails to comport with the separation of powers under the Constitution," wrote former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Citizens United, along with another conservative group, Stars and Stripes reported.
"The primary purpose of the Special Counsel regulations, which were modeled on the Independent Counsel statute, was to avoid conflicts of interest when the executive branch investigates itself," the group wrote to the court. "But here, Attorney General Garland appointed Mr. Smith not to investigate someone connected to the United States Department of Justice, the President, or the Biden Administration — as was the case with Hunter Biden — but to investigate the Biden Administration’s leading political opponent."
Allison Gill, of "Mueller, She Wrote" fame, who now runs a podcast platform, asked other legal experts how it would impact other cases if Smith's appointment was ruled unlawful, namely the Washington, D.C. case over the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attacks.
"I feel like she’s giving this serious consideration because it’s the only issue that would impact BOTH Special Counsel cases," wrote Gill on X. "So could a dismissal in FL cause another delay in the DC case pending an appeal from Special Counsel?"
Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance replied, saying Cannon's ruling would have no bearing on the matter.
"Her ruling is not binding on any other judge," Vance wrote on X. "Her decision would be appealed to the 11th. If they didn't reverse her and in DC a conflicting ruling emerged, it would be the kind of circuit split SCOTUS resolves. But there isn't a lot of legal merit to this argument."
Speaking to CNN over the weekend, former ethics czar and impeachment lawyer Norm Eisen said, Cannon wants to remove Smith from the case "but knows if she does, the 11th circuit will kick her off instead."
Gill found that Cannon nudged co-defendant Walt Nauta to join Trump's request to dismiss Smith based on the unlawful appointment. Nauta then responded by doing exactly that.
"Nauta asked to join, and she granted it," wrote Gill. She posted Cannon's "order today, followed by her language suggesting it from a recent ruling."
