Trump Classified Docs Case: Hearings on Special Counsel Funding, Gag Order

0:00

/1861

Facts

Lawyers for Justice Department (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith's office Monday answered questions from the judge presiding over former Pres. Donald Trump's classified documents case about how the special counsel's investigation is being funded.¹
During the two-hour hearing, which was a continuation of proceedings from Friday, US District Judge Aileen Cannon said the funding could be a 'separation of powers concern.' Trump's attorneys are attempting to have the case dismissed on the grounds Smith was unlawfully appointed.¹
In response to the defense's argument that prosecutors' claims that Smith wasn't truly 'independent' from the DOJ invalidated his access to federal funding, prosecutor James Pearce argued Smith is ensuring the 'accountability and independence' expected of a special counsel.²
Cannon also sought more information about how past special prosecutors operated while Trump's lawyer urged Cannon to insist on more congressional oversight of Smith's work.³
In a second hearing Monday, Cannon heard prosecutors' arguments to expand a gag order on Trump to include statements about law enforcement. Trump's lawyers argued his statements about Pres. Joe Biden and the DOJ are not intended to put law enforcement officers in harm's way.⁴

Anti-Trump narrative, as provided by The New Republic. These hearings are dealing with legal issues that have already been determined. The only reason Cannon, a Trump appointee, is holding them is to make sure she slow-walks this case past Election Day. Trump's only hope is to win the presidency and then close Smith's investigation, so delaying is the name of his game.
Pro-Trump narrative, as provided by Breitbart. In its eagerness to prosecute the president's main political rival, the Biden administration may have flouted some laws. That's why every hearing Cannon holds is crucial for making sure the rule of law is upheld. Many of these legal issues, including whether Smith's appointment was constitutional, have never been tested in court before and must be adjudicated.