Donald Trump set to pull huge legal victory on 40 charges slammed against him

 

There are strong indications that former U.S. President, Donald Trump could pull a stunning victory in the case against him in which he was accused of withholding sensitive documents after leaving office

According to report by Newsweek quoting legal expert, the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified-documents trial could play a part in getting the former president acquitted of the charges a matter of weeks before the start of the 2024 election.

 

Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and legal analyst, was discussing the potential knock-on effects of the decisions from Judge Aileen Cannon in the case. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges over allegations he illegally retained sensitive materials when he left office, then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them.

 

 

The former president denies any wrongdoing and has repeatedly said the case is part of a political witch hunt aimed at derailing his White House bid.

READ ALSO: Trump to appeal $355 million civil fraud trial ruling

On Friday, Cannon held a scheduling hearing, which Trump attended in person, to hear arguments about when the federal trial currently scheduled for May should begin. Lawyers for Trump, the expected 2024 Republican presidential candidate, said that the proceedings should not begin until 2025 due to the former president’s campaign schedule, but also gave a potential start date for the trial, as demanded by a court order, of August 12.

 

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office said to Cannon that the classified-documents trial should begin in July. The timing of the trial, as with the other criminal proceedings against the former president, is crucial for the Republican. If Trump beats President Joe Biden in November before the classified-documents trial takes place, Trump could order the Department of Justice to drop the federal case into him once he enters office.

 

In a series of posts on X, formerly Twitter, ahead of the scheduled hearing, Vance said that Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump and been criticized for multiple judgments that have favored the former president in the classified-documents case, could also benefit Trump with her decisions on how evidence in the case can be disclosed.

 

Cannon has held several pretrial Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) discussions with Trump’s lawyers and Smith’s team, to deal with how the sensitive materials connected to the case should be handled during proceedings.

 

 

Vance said that whether a jury finds Trump guilty of the charges or not could come down to the “calls on the evidence” Cannon makes, and what she allows Smith’s team to submit.

 

“Decisions against the government on evidence aren’t subject to review on appeal if a defendant is acquitted. Once a jury is sworn in, double jeopardy attaches and a defendant who is acquitted can’t be retried. If a judge excludes essential evidence and the jury acquits, that’s it,” Vance wrote.

 

“So if Judge Cannon were to give Trump his August trial date & the case actually goes to trial (2 big ifs) the case could come down to Cannon’s calls on the evidence. It’s a straightforward case for the government if it all comes in. Trump kept classified info and obstructed justice.

 

 

“If the Judge doesn’t give the government a fair shake on the evidence, it could lead to an acquittal right as voters are preparing to go to the polls. The nuance of the judge’s role in admitting evidence would be lost—all that would matter for Trump would be the acquittal,” Vance added.

 

Cannon did not confirm when the classified-documents trial should start during the scheduling hearing, but is widely expected to push it back from its current date of May 20.

 

During the hearing, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said that scheduling the trial before November’s election would be a “mistake and should not happen.”

 

 

“The easy solution is to start this trial after the election,” Blanche added.

 

Federal prosecutor Jay Brett said that Trump’s lawyers’ suggested dates for proceedings to begin are “fake,” and that they would only attempt to delay the trial further, even if their proposed timeline is accepted by the judge.