Recently, special counsel Jack Smith and his prosecutor team came under fire for severe transgressions in their confidential information case against former President Donald Trump. Clear missteps have been identified by seasoned legal analysts after reviewing the updated submissions made by Smith’s team to U.S. District Judge, Aileen Cannon.
Reports published by Just the News revealed that Smith’s prosecution team made shocking admissions in their submissions. Disturbingly, they have confessed to manipulating a body of evidence originally procured from an FBI incursion in August 2023, which took place at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Simultaneously, they deliberately misled Judge Cannon regarding specific details related to the evidence and the findings thereof.
The revelation has raised the eyebrows of many in the legal field. Legal authority figures speaking to Just the News have suggested that this could spell doom for the prosecutors. They have drawn attention to the strict court rules about retaining evidence in the original state it was collected, stressing just how sharply Smith’s team may have deviated from the course.
The Smith prosecution team’s Friday filing added another twist to the tale. It would seem the integrity of the documentation procured from the Mar-a-Lago estate is in question. The arrangement of the documents within some of the seized memo boxes has ostensibly been tampered with, creating two distinct sequences – one digital and another one based on the physical documents’ arrangement within the boxes.
The Friday filing elucidated upon how the boxes have been accessed by relevant staff since the day of the seizure, for reasons including adherence to court orders, investigative necessities, and to aid defendants in reviewing the boxes. Imperatively, the order of the materials within some boxes is not consistent when compared to corresponding scans.
Alarming revelations from Smith’s team did not end there. The team also confessed to previously providing the court with misconstrued information indicating that the seized evidence had remained as is, which was not the case. This realization raises both eyebrows and troubling questions about the accuracy and transparency of the prosecution’s disclosures.
One noteworthy point from Just the News pertains to how the documents were arranged in the storage boxes at the Mar-a-Lago estate. As Trump’s defense gears up, the order those files were kept in could dramatically change the narrative. They aim to make the argument that these documents, sent to Trump’s residence in an uncomplicated and chronological order after being handled in the White House, were not accessed or known by Trump to contain confidential information.
Attempting to downplay the severity of their transgressions, Smith’s team insists that this mishap should not cause delay in Trump’s case. However, a multitude of legal intellectuals have raised concerns, opining that the implications of evidence tampering and misleading the judge could be catastrophic for the prosecution team.
Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz shared with Just the News that prosecutors and investigators must never meddle with or modify evidence in their possession, including the arrangement of documents in a box. As unpredictability is a trademark of legal proceedings, every minute detail could eventually hold significance for a court or jury.
The candid admission was equally shocking and crucial, according to Tim Parlatore, a defense attorney who previously worked on Trump’s team in this classified documents case. ‘This revelation underlines the incompetence of Smith’s prosecutors in conducting basic criminal investigations and prosecutions’, said Tim, pointing out the gravity of the situation.
On an even deeper level, this could lead to the destruction of evidence that could prove Trump’s innocence. ‘The loss of specific document locations is tantamount to the obliteration of exculpatory evidence’, Tim added.
This move has called the prosecutor’s credibility into question as they were the ones who sought to demonstrate that the defendants were knowingly in possession of these documents. To then go ahead and damage the very evidence that could dispute their claim is highly unprofessional, to say the least.
The unsettling findings portend potential serious consequences for the case, as they could mislead the court and the jury. As summarized by Tim Parlatore: ‘For prosecutors attempting to prove that the defendants knowingly possessed these classified documents, to then compromise evidence that could contradict their claims is a very serious violation.’
