The third and final day of hearings in Donald Trump’s classified documents case ended on a contentious note as prosecutor David Harbach, representing special counsel Jack Smith, accused the former president’s legal team of “hijacking” the proceedings with irrelevant and far-fetched allegations. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, overseeing the case, quickly intervened, stating, “There is no hijacking going on — it’s about to end.”
Harbach’s frustration was palpable as he argued that Trump’s lawyers were diverting the court’s attention from the core issues at hand. “It’s not fair,” he contended, emphasizing that the defense was raising points that had “nothing to do” with the matters before the court. Judge Cannon had convened the hearings to consider the defense’s motions to dismiss the case and to limit the prosecution’s use of certain evidence.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty last year to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, has consistently denied all charges, labeling the investigation a political witch hunt. The charges stem from allegations that Trump refused to return hundreds of classified documents and took steps to obstruct the government’s efforts to retrieve them.
During the 90-minute hearing, Judge Cannon appeared skeptical of the defense’s arguments that the evidence seized from the FBI’s August 2022 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate should be dismissed due to a lack of specificity in the search warrant. She repeatedly told Trump’s lawyers that their arguments seemed “far afield” and that she was “unclear” about how they believed the warrant and search should have been conducted.
Trump’s legal team argued that the FBI agents who conducted the search were given vague instructions, that the affidavit supporting the search warrant omitted key details, and that the raid went too far by including searches of the bedrooms of Trump’s wife and youngest son. Defense lawyer Emil Bove emphasized the size of the Mar-a-Lago property, suggesting that the search was overly broad.
Judge Cannon, however, questioned the relevance of the property’s size. “What’s your point? It’s a large property,” she responded. “You would agree paperwork is a sort of thing that can be located anywhere.” She also pressed Harbach to explain why the FBI extended their search to the bedrooms, rather than just the storage room and office where classified documents were stored.
Harbach admitted there was no direct evidence that boxes were moved to the child’s room but argued that it would have been “irresponsible not to search there” given the belief that Trump stored boxes in unusual locations, including a bathroom shower. He insisted that there was “no rummaging anywhere, least of all in either of those locations.”
Bove also contended that prosecutors made significant omissions in the search warrant application, including the fact that Trump had the right to possess classified documents as president. Judge Cannon appeared unconvinced, remarking that she was “failing to see why adding into the affidavit the undisputed and obvious point” would make a difference. “The key is post-presidency,” she noted, referring to Trump’s alleged retention of classified documents after leaving office.
Despite Cannon’s previous rulings that have often supported the defense, she signaled a willingness to side with prosecutors on the issue of the search. She remarked that she had a “hard time” buying the defense’s argument, and the hearing grew tense as both sides presented their cases. At one point, Cannon urged Bove to “stay focused on this motion, please,” as she grew frustrated with the arguments from both sides.
The admissibility of notes by Trump’s former lead attorney, Evan Corcoran, was not addressed during the public portion of the hearing. However, Cannon noted that the topic of “presumptively privileged material” was discussed under seal during the morning session.
Judge Cannon concluded the hearing without issuing any ruling from the bench, leaving the outcome of the defense’s requests uncertain. The case continues to be a focal point of legal and political debate, with Trump’s legal team and prosecutors locked in a battle over the handling and retention of classified documents.
The case has drawn significant public attention, not only because of the high-profile nature of the defendant but also due to the broader implications for the handling of classified information by former government officials. As the legal proceedings continue, both sides are expected to vigorously defend their positions, with the potential for further heated exchanges in the courtroom.
Source: ABC News, Department of Justice via AP
