Legal clash of titans, former U.S. President Donald Trump finds himself on the receiving end of a scathing rebuttal from Special Counsel Jack Smith. Recent reports from Law and Crime on March 8, 2024, highlight Smith’s dismantling of Trump’s defense, particularly the arguments invoking the Presidential Records Act (PRA) in a bid to dismiss the Espionage Act indictment linked to Mar-a-Lago.
Smith’s firm rebuttal, backed by Stephen Miller, underscores the uphill battle the defense faces in this high-stakes case.
“Trump’s reliance on the PRA as a basis for dismissing the indictment is wrong. The PRA does not exempt Trump from the criminal law, entitle him to unilaterally declare highly classified presidential records to be personal records, or shield him from criminal investigations, let alone allow him to obstruct a federal investigation with impunity,” the filing declared, pulling no punches.
A key point of contention dismantled by Smith is Trump’s misapplication of Executive Order 13526, which governs access to classified materials. Smith argues that, post-office, Trump lacked authorization to possess classified information, especially storing documents at Mar-a-Lago, an unauthorized location for handling such sensitive material.
Smith’s analogy likens Trump’s actions to an alchemist attempting to change the nature of classified materials.
“Under the provisions of EO 13526, the Superseding Indictment alleges, once Trump left office, he no longer had authorization to possess classified information. He never received a waiver entitling him, as a former President, to possess it, and he stored documents at a location that was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents,” emphasized the special counsel.
Addressing Stephen Miller’s support of dismissing the prosecution based on alleged improper referral by the National Archives to the Department of Justice, Smith dismisses this claim as “fundamentally wrong.”
“The PRA provides no specific exception to EO 13526 that would authorize Trump to keep classified government records at Mar-a-Lago,” wrote Smith, highlighting even the Hur Report on President Joe Biden reached a similar conclusion.
In additional filings, Smith responds to comparisons with Hillary Clinton, emphasizing privacy concerns for third parties and witness safety.
“Indeed, given that (1) the Government’s redactions to its three Oppositions are truly minimal, representing portions of only 13 pages out of 268 pages of briefing, and (2) the articulation of threats that witnesses have already faced in this case and the potential for threats if names and identifying information are disclosed.”
“The Government has demonstrated that the limited sealing or redaction proposed here meets not only the good cause standard but also the higher standard of being ‘necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and [ ] narrowly tailored to serve that interest,'” Smith asserted, shedding light on the complexity of the legal battle unfolding.
