Earlier on Thursday, RedState wrote about the attorneys representing former president Donald Trump asking for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against him to be dismissed:
Former President Donald Trump was back in a Florida courtroom on Thursday as his lawyers argued for a dismissal of his ongoing classified documents case.
Trump’s legal team was arguing its position on whether all or some of the charges should be thrown out because of the 1978 law that governs the preservation of information during and following a presidency.
Special counsel Jack Smith has called on the judge overseeing the case to reject Trump’s claim that he should be shielded from prosecution because classified presidential records “can be transformed into ‘personal’” records by removing them from the White House. Trump has said that he designated the materials he took to Mar-a-Lago as personal records while still in office. A president’s personal records are excluded from the act’s requirements.
The presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, expressed some skepticism on the arguments coming from both sides.
At one point, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon noted that no other former president has faced criminal charges related to the law. “There has never been a situation remotely similar to this one,” Jay Bratt of the special counsel’s office responded.
(Trump attorney Todd) Blanche argued that “presidents since George Washington have taken materials out of the White House” at “their own discretion,” but Cannon seemed skeptical of his arguments involving the Records Act.
“It’s difficult to see how this gets you to the dismissal of an indictment,” she said.
READ MORE: Trump Lawyers Argue for Dismissal of Classified Documents Case
Now, the judge has ruled, denying the motion:
BREAKING: Judge Cannon DENIES Trump’s motion to dismiss the classified documents case in Florida based on unconstitutional vagueness. https://t.co/6FUVfbNJRO pic.twitter.com/lXg6Q6rrG3
— Chris “Law Dork” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 14, 2024
Here’s part of the decision, with questions by the judge highlighted:
NEW: As expected, Judge Cannon just denied Trump’s motion to dismiss on unconstitutional vagueness of Espionage Act motion, one of two motions debated today.
She repeatedly asked whether some of the unclear definitions instead should be resolved in jury instructions pic.twitter.com/068JhzKgcx
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 14, 2024
In case you can’t read the full post, it reads:
As expected, Judge Cannon just denied Trump’s motion to dismiss on unconstitutional vagueness of Espionage Act motion, one of two motions debated today.
She repeatedly asked whether some of the unclear definitions instead should be resolved in jury instructions
You can read the full decision (.pdf) here.
The decision is without prejudice, which means the issue can be raised again in a motion for summary judgment or at trial.
This is a breaking story, RedState will bring you further details as they become available.
