“Pure Gold”: CNN Realizes Jack Smith Won’t “Get Trump” Before Election [WATCH]

CNN recently commented on the news that Judge Aileen Cannon postponed the Mar-a-Lago documents case indefinitely.  Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed to investigate Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

 

 

However, Judge Cannon delayed the trial, initially set for May 20, noting there were too many pre-trial motions and outstanding classified issues that needed to be resolved.  Reports indicate that it is unlikely the trial will begin before the presidential election in November.

 

In light of this news, undoubtedly disappointing to many on the left who want to see Trump prosecuted into oblivion, CNN appeared dismayed that Jack Smith would not be able to “get Trump” before November.   Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk shared a clip of the liberal network reporting on the news when it initially broke.

 

Kirk captioned the post, “CNN realizing that Jack Smith won’t be able to “Get Trump” before the election is pure GOLD.”  CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid noted, “What Jack Smith knows tonight though is that it’s very possible that he might not be able to bring either one of his federal cases against former President Trump before the election… If Trump is reelected he can have Jack Smith and both of his cases dismissed.”

 

Political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness, Julie Kelly, wrote a lengthy post on X about how the left will react to Judge Cannon’s move to delay the trial.  “You will see tonight outrage by legal “experts” about Judge Cannon vacating trial date and refusing to set a new one,” she wrote. “They will again accuse her of being in the tank for Trump and demand Jack Smith seek her recusal.”

 

Kelly further claimed that the media will provide biased coverage of the news, writing, “At the same time, these frauds will refuse to cover all of the new developments related to DOJ tampering with evidence, misrepresenting the condition of the evidence to the court, doctored evidence, and perhaps even missing/misplaced documents.”

 

According to Judge Cannon’s written order, the “myriad” of issues in the case ultimately prevented the finalization of a trial date.  She added that proceeding with the case would violate the court’s duty to “fully and fairly” evaluate the various pre-trial motions presented before the court.  Therefore, the original trial date of May 20 is infeasible.

 

Cannon’s order read in part, “The Court also determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture- before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming–would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.” The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice.”