US district judge rejects Trump’s bid to dismiss classified documents case

The New York Post ^ | 04/04/2024 | Victor Nava

[thegagline]

US District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday denied a motion filed by former President Donald Trump seeking to dismiss the criminal charges against him in his classified documents case.

Trump, 77, had argued that under the Presidential Records Act of 1978 he had the authority to designate sensitive documents as his personal property after leaving the White House.

Cannon ruled that “the Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss” the 40 charges against the former president.

She further noted that prosecutors “make no reference to the Presidential Records Act” in the indictment against Trump and did not “rely” on the post-Watergate law to bring charges.

Cannon slammed special counsel Jack Smith’s demand that she make a ruling on whether Trump can use the legal theory as part of his defense in the West Palm Beach, Fla., federal court, calling it “unprecedented and unjust.”

The Trump-appointed judge said at a March 14 hearing that the Presidential Records Act argument may have “some force” as a defense at trial.

Smith’s demand came after the judge ordered both the defense and prosecution to submit proposals for jury instructions in the case.

Smith argued in a Tuesday filing that the president has no authority to hoard classified material under the Presidential Records Act, and that the law had “no bearing” on Trump’s alleged retention of “national defense information.”

He accused Cannon of basing her request for jury instruction related to the act on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise” that would “distort” the trial if allowed to stand. ***

[Steven W.]

Cannon ruled that “the Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss

In both decisions today, the one in GA and this one, the judges had intimated that their decisions were pertaining to the time + standing & state of the respective cases; McAfee kept saying, in hearing, that he thought the motions were best suited as motions for a directed verdict because, only then, will it be known whether Team Fani actually has an underlying crime other than speech ... they say they do and, presumably, they'll get that opportunity to show what they have ... then, in what it seemed the Judge was suggesting, they'd have grounds to move for a directed verdict because the case would then be submitted. In Cannon's case, she granted Jack legal grounds as proper to assume that everything in his fake indictment was true and, more to the point, there was nothing in the indictment alluding to PRA though that's what they based the whole thing off in originating off the "referral" from NARA. As it stands, she, explained in order, she can only operate within the confines of the indictment, meaning the issue of PRA isn't yet on the table ... but once things more along it will be and, then, it's a defense that can be proffered.

[lurk]

The defense can open that door. Then they discuss it, including the Clinton sock drawer case.

Then the jury votes. And Jack’s whole case is a possum on the highway.

[Major Matt Mason]

Cannon should just toss this case, it's obvious what is going on here. Smith running his mouth was a new low, but there isn't a bottom with the Democrats.

[AndyJackson]

She is ducking her duty as a judge. Whether or not the PRA preempts Jack Smith’s claims is an issue of law. He claims Trump improperly retained records. Trump claims he can retain what he determines to be personal records when he leaves office under the PRA. There is no issue of fact in contest. It’s an issue of law. Period.

[Steven W.]

she’s still doing OK IMO ... she’s bound by law in considering a motion to dismiss by defense that requires a presumption that everything in Jack’s indictment is true and it’s limited to that, she noted she was constrained within the bounds of the indictment. Jack thought he was being cute by omitting PRA and telling her this case has nothing to do with PRA though that’s what they first claimed when opening grand jury in DC. She can’t consider it yet because it’s not even on the table what docs are in question. Jack has to present the docs, then they can be looked at and stated, “hey that’s one of the docs I put in a box to take home with me as personal records, in fact it’s one of those #RussiaGate incriminating things that I declassified too even before PRA.”

[AndyJackson]

And McAfee - only the will it be known whether there was a crime committed. WTF? Since Fani has to turn over evidence to the defendant, both the judge and the defendant have to know whether or not she has facts supporting the elements of a cime. These judges are not the stuff of which great judges are made. Proof at trial before a jury is a right, but no actual legal case is no case and it should tossed along with the corrupt prosecutors after sanctioning them to hell and gone.

[AndyJackson]

Even if all true the PRA question can still be addressed. It’s a legal question. Does the President get to decide or does he not as President wield the executive power. It’s a straightforward question and she could take it on now. IThat is a clear question of law. It’s going to the SC in any case. She might as well start her legal research and write a decision or allow the parties to submit the question for appeal now if she is not up to it.

[South Dakota]

I would agree that the case should be tossed but the heat would come down like ash from a volcano on Cannon

[stylin19a]

I’m still wondering why there hasn’t been a motion to dismiss based on equal protection.
Pence and Biden got to skate on having records neither should have had and neither was president.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Equal protection is generally about different treatment due to race, sex, religion, etc. Youre thinking of selective prosecution

[ronnie raygun]

We can all see how corrupt they system has become

[Stingray51]

This is good. Were Canon to dismiss the case now, it would take the case out of her hands and place it with the appellate court. I think it is better that she retains control.

[stylin19a]

thank you. yes that would be it.

[Bob Wills is still the king]

Prosecuting attorneys, be they local, state, or federal like Smith, practice “selective prosecution” every single day. That’s why mountains of legal precedent recognize “prosecutorial discretion” as an inherent power and duty of the positions.