Former President Donald Trump called for the lawsuit over classified Mar-a-Lago documents to be dismissed, citing the Presidential Records Act. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon denied the motion and said the case will continue.
Former President Donald Trump called for the lawsuit over classified Mar-a-Lago documents to be dismissed, citing the Presidential Records Act. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon denied the motion and said the case will continue.
MIAMI – A federal judge in Florida denied a motion by former President Donald Trump to dismiss charges against him in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Trump is accused of illegally retaining and hiding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House.
In their motion, Trump’s lawyers asserted that the former president could designate documents classified as personal and, under the Presidential Records Act, legally retain them after his term ended. By taking them to Mar-a-Lago instead of sending them to the National Archives, his lawyers say, Trump was effectively designating them as personal.
At a hearing in Fort Pierce last month, prosecutors said the charges against Trump have nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. The indictment charges him with 32 counts of violating the Espionage Act.
In denying the defense motion, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, agreed with prosecutors. She wrote: “Those same charges do not reference the Presidential Records Act nor rely on that statute to declare a crime.”
Judge Cannon’s order comes two days after special prosecutor Jack Smith told the judge in a court filing that it is “vitally important” that she decide whether Trump can cite the Presidential Records Act in his defense. That filing came after Cannon ordered prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers to submit proposed jury instructions citing the Presidential Records Act.
“If the Court wrongly concludes that this is the case and that it intends to include the PRA in the jury instructions…it must inform the parties of that decision well in advance of trial,” Smith writes. He asked the judge to rule on the matter soon, saying prosecutors might need time to file an appeal.
Although he ruled in favor of the government, Cannon reserved some criticism for Smith in Thursday’s order.
She called his criticism of the proposed jury instructions “unprecedented and unfair.” Asking the parties to submit draft jury instructions related to the Presidential Records Act, she said, was “a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions.”
In response to Smith’s indication that he might file an appeal, Cannon writes that “either party remains free to avail itself of any appeal option it sees fit to invoke.”
Thursday’s decision marks the second time in a month that Cannon has rejected a motion by Trump to dismiss the charges. The former president’s lawyers had argued that the wording of the Espionage Act statute he is accused of violating is unconstitutionally vague. In denying his motion, the judge noted that no judge has declared the statute unconstitutional.
Cannon’s rulings mean the case can move forward; However, he has yet to decide on a trial schedule. Prosecutors want the trial to begin this summer, while Trump’s lawyers believe it should be postponed until well after the November presidential election.
