The federal judge overseeing the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for mishandling classified documents on Thursday denied one of her motions to have the case thrown out, the first time she has denied a legal attack on the ‘indictment.
In a two-page order, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, rejected arguments by Mr. Trump’s lawyers that the central law of the indictment, the Espionage Act, was too vague and should be completely invalidated.
Judge Cannon’s decision followed a nearly day-long hearing in federal district court in Fort Pierce, Fla., where she heard arguments from Mr. Trump’s legal team and prosecutors from the Office of the President. special advisor Jack Smith on the Espionage Act. The government says the former president violated that law 32 times by removing a trove of highly sensitive classified documents from the White House after leaving office.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that certain phrases in the law’s text — for example, requiring prosecutors to prove that defendants had taken «unauthorized possession» of documents «relating to national defense» — were so ambiguous and subject to debate that they were inapplicable.
At the hearing, Judge Cannon, appointed by Mr. Trump near the end of his term, appeared skeptical of the attack on the law. As Mr. Trump and Mr. Smith sat opposite her on opposite sides of the courtroom, she said it would be an “extraordinary” decision for a judge to unilaterally strike down the Espionage Act , the primary federal law governing the handling of classified information. material.
In her order, Judge Cannon acknowledged that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had raised «various arguments meriting serious consideration,» but she added that their concerns about the Espionage Act were best expressed «in connection with the instructions of the jury”.
Her suggestion that the case could move toward a resolution of jury issues was the clearest indication she has given yet that it could eventually go to trial, even if she has not yet set a specific date.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers launched another attack on the case during the hearing in Fort Pierce, saying that under a law known as the Presidential Records Act, Mr. Trump designated the documents that he had taken with him to the White House as his personal property and therefore he could not be accused of possessing them without authorization.
Judge Cannon also expressed deep reservations about this claim, noting that even if Mr. Trump was free to assert at trial that the documents he was accused of possessing actually belonged to him, it was «difficult to see» how this argument justified being rejected. the whole case before it goes to a jury.
The two motions discussed in court on Thursday were just part of the barrage of documents Mr. Trump’s lawyers submitted to Judge Cannon in a sort of kitchen sink approach that attacked the indictment from every conceivable angle – not to mention how a Many lawyers might also consider inconceivable solutions.
In addition to his attacks on the Espionage Act and his allegations under the Presidential Records Act, Mr. Trump has questioned the legality of Mr. Smith’s nomination and maintained — without any evidence — that President Biden personally ordered that proceedings be initiated against him. a way to sink his 2024 campaign.
Mr. Trump also claimed that he was completely immune from charges thanks to presidential immunity, even though he was no longer president when almost all of the actions mentioned in the indictment took place.
Taken together, the motions constitute an aggressive and often farcical attempt to evade accountability for keeping what prosecutors have described as some of the nation’s best-kept secrets and to call into question the government’s authority to having initiated the matter within the framework of the procedure. first place.
Mr. Trump’s arguments immediately portrayed the prosecutions as illegal and unfair, reflecting, as one of Mr. Smith’s aides recently wrote, «his view that as former President , the laws and accountability principles of the country that govern all other citizens do not apply to him.
While Judge Cannon spent much of the day grilling the defense and prosecution with detailed questions about key phrases in the Espionage Act and precisely how Mr. Trump went about naming the documents that he took as personal property, there is an important subject that she discussed. not address: the timing of the trial.
Two weeks ago, Judge Cannon held a hearing ostensibly to set a new trial date, but she has yet to issue a decision.
Throughout Thursday’s hearing, Judge Cannon continued to steer discussions in court toward issues related to another — and more politically explosive — motion filed by Mr. Trump’s lawyers. In that motion, the lawyers accused Mr. Smith of selectively and vindictively making accusations against Mr. Trump when other senior officials, like Mr. Biden, had not been prosecuted for possessing classified documents after having left their functions.
Judge Cannon has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion for selective prosecution, a notoriously difficult motion for defendants to win.
But Mr. Smith’s team has fiercely opposed those claims, saying in recent court papers that Mr. Trump’s case was “radically different” from Mr. Biden’s. Prosecutors argued, among other things, that while Mr. Biden cooperated fully with investigators, Mr. Trump repeatedly obstructed their attempts to recover documents and conduct an investigation into his efforts to hide them.