Judge Aileen Cannon paused litigation in the case of Jack Smith and classified documents on Friday, as she considers whether to grant Trump’s motion to extend deadlines related to classified material.
Attorneys Chris Kise and Todd Blanche for Trump argued that prosecutors acting for Jack Smith were employing delaying tactics in the discovery process, thereby taking too long to deliver evidence. According to their motion, they deemed the May trial date unworkable.
“On July 18, 2023, the Special Counsel’s Office represented to the Court that ‘all’ discovery would be available on ‘day one.’” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
Blanche and Kise also said Jack Smith’s Florida classified docs trial set for May 20 and his separate March 4 DC trial regarding Trump’s so-called effort to stop the transfer of power set for March 4 require “Trump and his lawyers to be in two places at once.”
“The March 4, 2023 trial date in the District of Columbia, and the underlying schedule in that case, currently require President Trump and his lawyers to be in two places at once,” Trump’s lawyers wrote, according to CBS News. “And, months after the Office’s representation to the Court, discovery is not complete in this case—including with respect to the classified documents at issue in more than 25% of the [Espionage Act] counts in the Superseding Indictment.”
Jack Smith’s goal was to make it difficult for Trump’s lawyers to travel between Washington, DC and Florida by scheduling concurrent court dates. The attorneys have stated that the DOJ prosecutors have not provided any classification reviews or basic discovery materials.
“These are not mere ‘complaints.’ The Special Counsel’s Office has not provided some of the most basic discovery in the case,” the attorneys wrote. “Given the current schedule, we cannot understate the prejudice to President Trump arising from his lack of access to these critical materials months after they should have been produced.”
Blanche and Kise, who had previously applied for security clearances to review classified material in the context of this case, contended that the Special Counsel had not established even the most rudimentary protocols for handling the confidential documents.
“The Special Counsel’s Office has failed to make very basic arrangements in this District for the handling of the relevant classified information, the holding of necessary CIPA hearings, and the production of related work products by the court and counsel,” the lawyers wrote…