I like that Cannon set up two strawman arguments as frameworks that distill the nuggets of the arguments from both sides. I think she did this to give the appellate court a roadmap to go by when the case eventually ends up there.
These are not two strongman arguments. They are real.
Option (a) is in the case where classification of the records as Personal or Presidential is argued to the jury. In that case the jury must be given access to the records — each and every one of them, unredacted. I believe Jack Smith entered the whole load into the case.
Option (b) is in the case where classification may not be argued to the jury. That essentially narrows it down to whatever the President decided.
These are proposed instructions to be given by the judge to the jury. Smith (and Trump's lawyer) need to rephrase each one in a manner they find aceptable to deliver to the jury. No counter-argument is permitted. Assume Smith completes his homework assignment, the judge could adopt his paraphrase as her instruction to the jury and he can't pick nits about the wording. And she gets to recline with a nice cocktail and think about Jack Smith doing his homework.
So, let me pick your brain on this.
These are proposed instructions to be given by the judge to the jury.
First, and not to quibble (well, maybe just a little), but I say "strawman" and you say "proposed." A difference without a distinction?
Does the judge have final say on what the final jury instructions will be? Is she soliciting input from both sides to help formulate her instructions?
Or is the judge asking each side to submit the language that THEY want to be included in her jury instructions?
Second, didn't I read that Smith thinks this is a premature exercise, and that soliciting jury instructions now is tainting the proceedings since no jury has been selected and no testimony and cross has happened yet? Is this the basis that Smith will use to try to get Cannon removed from the case?
And third, was Cannon's reasoning that the jury hinges on who has the appropriate security level to see the documents in question, so she's proposing "strawman" jury instructions now to make the point that the eventual jury that is selected must be qualified to receive either of these jury instruction templates?
-PJ