In a hearing that lasted for two hours on Monday morning, the judge in charge of the case regarding former President Donald Trump’s classified documents made a push for government attorneys to disclose further details about the financing of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. At one point during the hearing, the judge even expressed concerns about the funding, citing potential issues regarding the separation of powers.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon presided over the hearing, which continued from Friday’s proceedings. The defense team argued for the dismissal of the documents case, citing the alleged unlawful appointment of Smith as special counsel.
Related posts
Last year, Trump entered a plea of not guilty to 40 criminal counts linked to his management of classified materials post his departure from the White House. Prosecutors claimed that he had persistently declined to surrender hundreds of documents that contained classified data and had obstructed the government’s attempts to retrieve them. Trump has refuted these allegations and has criticized the investigation, calling it a political witch hunt.
On Monday, defense lawyer Emil Bove contended that the financing of the special counsel’s office violated the Constitution since it depends on a “permanent indefinite appropriation” that exists outside of the standard budgetary procedures.
“Judge Cannon inquired whether there is a limit to the funding,” was the question posed.
According to Bove, the absence of any check on the extent to which personal data is being accessed is a cause for concern. “No, and I think that’s one of the reasons why we need to be cautious about who has access to it and for what purpose,” Bove stated. “The scope of what’s happening here is not being monitored.”
During the argument regarding the constitutionality of the special counsel’s office, Bove relentlessly questioned its legitimacy. In the courtroom, Smith was present, taking occasional notes as the argument progressed. However, Smith was absent during the hearing on Friday.
During the discussion, Cannon expressed some doubt regarding Bove’s argument and even accused him of changing his stance on the independence of the special counsel’s office. However, she did raise an important point when questioning assistant special counsel James Pearce about the office’s budget.
At a certain point, Cannon expressed his concern about the separation of powers when there are no limits in place.
Pearce criticized the defense’s argument, stating that the last eight special counsels were funded and overseen using the same process as Smith’s. However, Pearce assured that the Department of Justice would allocate funds for Smith’s case through their budget if necessary.
Pearce confirmed the DOJ’s unwavering dedication to providing the necessary funds for the special counsel to carry on with the prosecution.
According to Pearce, the funding source switch would have absolutely no impact or alteration on the case.
Bove contended that if the special counsel were to be funded by the Department of Justice, it would elicit a forceful reaction, potentially leading to congressional intervention and further legal motions from defense counsel.
According to Bove, it’s hard to picture how the motion will be resolved as he anticipates a potent political reaction.
During the hearing, Cannon seemed to retract some of her earlier statements, stating, “I am not insinuating anything. I am merely attempting to address the breadth of the information that has been presented here.”
During Monday afternoon’s hearing, Cannon listened to arguments regarding the potential implementation of a gag order on Trump. The order would aim to prevent any statements made by Trump that could potentially endanger law enforcement. Bove, who provided a preview of his argument earlier in the day, referred to the proposed gag order as an “extraordinary effort” to limit Trump’s ability to speak during debates and on the campaign trail.
