(TheRedAlertNews.com) – In a notable legal defeat for Donald Trump and a win for the ongoing leftist legal persecution of him, the judge presiding over his classified documents cases has snubbed the former president’s request to dismiss it on the grounds of the Presidential Records Act (PRA).
In February, Trump’s legal team argued that the PRA granted Trump the absolute authority to decide whether to classify the contested records as personal.
However, on Thursday, Florida-based US District Judge Aileen Cannon determined that the PRA does not offer a legal basis to dismiss the charges before the trial begins.
She pointed out that the first 32 counts of the indictment do not even mention the PRA, The Daily Caller reports.
“More generally, the Superseding Indictment specifies the nature of the accusations against Defendant Trump in a lengthy speaking indictment with embedded excerpts from investigative interviews, photographs, and other content,” the judge wrote in her decision.
“For these reasons, accepting the allegations of the Superseding Indictment as true, the Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v)—either as to Counts 1 through 32 or as to the remaining counts, all of which state cognizable offenses,” she elaborated.
Special Counsel Jack Smith criticized Cannon’s approach in a motion on Wednesday.
He asked for an order that would require the parties to propose jury instructions that consider two scenarios involving the Presidential Records Act.
Smith argued that the judge’s prior order was based on the same incorrect legal assumption as Trump’s dismissal request.
He urged Cannon to clarify her stance on this legal theory, indicating a potential appeal if she opposed the government’s perspective.
Cannon described Smith’s request as “unprecedented and unjust,” clarifying that her previous order was not meant to signal an endorsement of Trump’s defense strategy. She explained that her request for preliminary draft instructions on certain counts was merely an effort to better understand both parties’ arguments and the legal questions that would be presented to the jury in this complex and unprecedented case.
“The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case,” the judge wrote.
“Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression. As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law,” she concluded.
Copyright 2024, TheRedAlertNews.com
