By Kaelan Deese. Media: Washingtonexaminer
A Florida federal judge denied a bid by former President Donald Trump to dismiss his classified documents case on the grounds that his actions were permitted under the Presidential Records Act.
Trump’s attorneys had moved to dismiss the case on those grounds, writing in a February filing that the PRA granted “unreviewable discretion on President Trump to designate the records at issue as personal.” While U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon did not grant Trump’s motion to dismiss the case on PRA grounds, she left open the possibility for Trump to raise the argument if a trial ever takes place.
Cannon also pushed back on special counsel Jack Smith‘s ‘demand’ that she make a final ruling on whether the PRA theory can be used at trial, in the event prosecutors seek to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Cannon said that demand was “unprecedented and unjust.”
The first 32 counts in Smith’s indictment “make no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense,” the judge wrote in a three-page order. As for the remaining counts against Trump tacked on in a superseding indictment that alleged efforts to obstruct a federal investigation, she wrote, “They too track the applicable statutory language and essential elements of the charged crimes.”
The decision comes just two days after both parties submitted their responses to Cannon’s proposed jury instructions based on competing interpretations of two laws relevant in the case.
The first scenario asked them to consider “whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt” that any records Trump was found to have kept at home were “personal or presidential.” The second told parties to respond to a premise that juries and courts lack the expertise to review or determine whether a president has “sole authority” under the PRA to categorize records as personal. Smith has raised significant concerns with the premises, which legal experts contend would strongly favor Trump’s defense if they became finalized as part of the eventual jury instructions.
In the same decision on Thursday, Cannon rejected Smith’s request to show quickly whether she agrees with Trump’s assertion that the PRA, the post-Watergate law concerning the handling of White House records, may have allowed him to retain classified records indefinitely even after leaving the Oval Office.
Smith wrote in a Tuesday filing that Trump’s claim is nothing more than “pure fiction” and told Cannon to provide the special counsel’s office with enough time to appeal if she sides with Trump on that legal premise.
Cannon wrote that “the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust.”
The decision comes as uncertainty is brewing over whether the case, which was initially set for a May trial, will head to trial by July, as Cannon has held off on any scheduling orders after being briefed by parties on their preferences last month. Smith requested that a trial begin in July, which Cannon said might be unrealistic.
Trump is primarily facing charges under the Espionage Act, which prohibits the willful retention of national defense information. He is also charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly seeking to conceal records from authorities.
The former president has two co-defendants who are also facing charges for taking part in an alleged effort to delete security footage of boxes containing classified documents being moved out of a storage room to conceal them. All three defendants have pleaded not guilty.
Discussion about this post