Former President Trump is the subject of an endeavor by Special Council Jack Smith to prosecute him on 37 criminal counts pertaining to his management of classified materials that were maintained at his Florida residence.

Smith asserts that the materials comprise classified information regarding nuclear weapons in the United States and national security secrets.

Those who have been monitoring the FBI’s seizure of documents from the Trump residence, Mar-a-Lago, will recall that the former president maintained transparency throughout the process, as evidenced by the posts made by him and his family while the search and seizure were in progress.

Trump has maintained that the FBI and DOJ were cognizant of the documents and the storage situation. Trump stated in social media posts that the FBI had inspected Mar-a-Lago to determine where documents were kept and was satisfied with the visit, except for the request for an additional safeguard, which he had installed.

Smith has requested that Judge Aileen Cannon finalize pre-trial dates prior to the trial’s anticipated commencement in May 2024.

Cannon declared her decision not to do so on Thursday.

Additionally, on Thursday, Smith submitted a petition to initiate the acceleration of the discovery process for classified evidence that Trump’s attorneys intend to utilize in their defense of the former president.

The objections of Trump’s counsel were prematurely dismissed by Judge Cannon subsequent to his denial of Smith’s request.

Smith has previously encountered disciplinary action for declining to provide access to the evidence utilized against him and for making an effort to store that evidence in Washington, D.C., which is over 1,000 miles distant from Mar-a-Lago and the purported crime scene.

As Trump’s attorneys have requested that the trial be postponed, citing the approaching election and accusing the prosecution of interfering in the election process, Judge Cannon’s decisions in these cases suggest that the trial might, in fact, be rescheduled.

Cannon has declared that politics will not influence her decision-making process in this case. On Thursday, she declared that a March 2024 hearing would be the occasion for her determination of future trial dates, giving both parties over four months to negotiate the terms for evidence sharing.

Thousands of hours of video footage and 1.3 million pages of documents from Mar-a-Lago were continuously running cameras in preparation for viewing and documentation, indicating that the discovery process would be protracted.

The rationale behind the FBI’s directive for the deactivation of security cameras at Mar-a-Lago throughout the operation is under scrutiny, given that Trump publicly acknowledged receiving such a message during the raid but declined to comply.

Trump, who has consistently maintained his innocence in the matter, has asserted that he declassified the documents prior to his departure from office and that the storage was reviewed and authorized.

In anticipation of their search of the Maravilla, FBI agents who instructed Marago staff to deactivate cameras will be subpoenaed by Trump’s attorneys. There is conjecture among legal professionals who forecast that significant portions of Smith’s case may be dismissed due to the videos’ incendiary language.

Subsequent to his victory in the presidential election, Trump will be exempt from prosecution. Given that Smith is making every effort to prosecute Trump prior to the presidential election, Cannon’s decisions present a challenge for him.

According to a publication in Mewsweek, Andrew Weissman, a former FBI official under Obama, has suggested on X that Smith should petition for the removal of Judge Cannon due to the defendent’s favorable judgments in her decisions.

Nonetheless, Cannon granted Smith’s request this week as well. Judge Cannon outlined a series of restrictions on Wednesday regarding the location and manner in which Trump and his team may review and discuss the information contained in the documents during the discovery period, which occurs prior to the trial.

The 16-page document outlines the regulations, which stipulate that any classified information “generated, transmitted, constructed, or maintained” by Trump and his legal team, or provided to them by the government, must be securely stored and maintained in a facility supervised by a court-designated classifiable information security officer. The order was issued in response to a request by Smith, which Cannon duly granted.

CBS News reports that the order specifies that classified information may only be discussed in a secure location, formally referred to as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF), or “in an area authorized” by the security officer.

The designated security officer would be responsible for coordinating and directing the perusal of the documents so as to facilitate the procedure in an efficient manner.

Cannon stated, “Any violation of the terms of this ORder shall be brought immediately to the attention of the Court and may result in a charge of contempt of Court and possible referral for criminal prosecution” adding that unauthorized disclosure of classified information could have serious ramifications to the security of the United States.

Due to Cannon’s decision in favor of both parties, Smith would likely encounter considerable difficulty in advocating for her removal.