During a hearing on Thursday, a federal judge questioned the lawyers of the former president Donald Trump over their justifications for the dismissal of the Florida lawsuit concerning his personal records. Numerous stories state that as Trump sat in quiet and listened in the Fort Pierce courtroom, Judge Aileen Cannon sometimes expressed doubt for the defense team.
Cannon's scheduling of the hearing was directly related to two of Trump's motions: the first sought the dismissal of his accusations on the grounds of the Presidential Records Act, while the second sought the dismissal of the claims due to their "unconstitutional vagueness." Soon after the session was over, Cannon denied the latter request.
Over a year ago, Special Counsel Jack Smith said that former President Trump was aware that, after his resignation, he had been holding secrets related to national security at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Additionally, Smith said that Trump had obstructed federal investigators.
When Trump entered a not guilty plea, the matter was withdrawn because he claimed that the Presidential Records Act of the 1970s should have shielded his activities.
A memo from last month from Trump's legal team said that Cannon ought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Presidential Materials Act gave the president "unreviewable discretion to designate the records at issue as personal."
In their own petition, prosecutors retorted that Trump's claims made under the Espionage Act were unrelated to the Presidential Records Act. Additionally, they said that defense lawyers were attempting to defend Trump's mental condition with hurried and improper "mens rea" arguments.
Politico observes that Cannon seemed to be leaning in favor of the prosecution on Thursday, suggesting that a jury trial would be a more appropriate setting for evaluating claims about the records law.
Additionally, the former president's defense attorney argued that the case ought to be dropped since the former president is accused of 32 of the 40 crimes he is facing. Trump's legal team claims the Act is "unconstitutionally vague."
Based on a 1917 provision meant to punish treason during World War I, CNN says that Cannon spent the most of the session investigating this issue and informed Trump's counsel that she would be taking a "extraordinary step" if she found that the claims were unlawful.
According to Cannon, "You realize, of course, that declaring a statute to be unconstitutionally vague is an extraordinary step."
Trump's lawyer said, "I know it is important, but it is justified here."
Regarding Trump's actions, Cannon said that he would respond "promptly."
The parties are still waiting for her response about the commencement date of the trial. Cannon brought up the possibility of a trial timetable at a hearing earlier this month, but she has not brought it up again. She said nothing that Thursday.
Smith has asked Cannon to set a trial date for July, but Trump, the front-runner in the GOP presidential race, has insisted that the trial happen after the election.
Cannon's scheduling of the hearing was directly related to two of Trump's motions: the first sought the dismissal of his accusations on the grounds of the Presidential Records Act, while the second sought the dismissal of the claims due to their "unconstitutional vagueness." Soon after the session was over, Cannon denied the latter request.
Over a year ago, Special Counsel Jack Smith said that former President Trump was aware that, after his resignation, he had been holding secrets related to national security at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Additionally, Smith said that Trump had obstructed federal investigators.
When Trump entered a not guilty plea, the matter was withdrawn because he claimed that the Presidential Records Act of the 1970s should have shielded his activities.
A memo from last month from Trump's legal team said that Cannon ought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Presidential Materials Act gave the president "unreviewable discretion to designate the records at issue as personal."
In their own petition, prosecutors retorted that Trump's claims made under the Espionage Act were unrelated to the Presidential Records Act. Additionally, they said that defense lawyers were attempting to defend Trump's mental condition with hurried and improper "mens rea" arguments.
Politico observes that Cannon seemed to be leaning in favor of the prosecution on Thursday, suggesting that a jury trial would be a more appropriate setting for evaluating claims about the records law.
Additionally, the former president's defense attorney argued that the case ought to be dropped since the former president is accused of 32 of the 40 crimes he is facing. Trump's legal team claims the Act is "unconstitutionally vague."
Based on a 1917 provision meant to punish treason during World War I, CNN says that Cannon spent the most of the session investigating this issue and informed Trump's counsel that she would be taking a "extraordinary step" if she found that the claims were unlawful.
According to Cannon, "You realize, of course, that declaring a statute to be unconstitutionally vague is an extraordinary step."
Trump's lawyer said, "I know it is important, but it is justified here."
Regarding Trump's actions, Cannon said that he would respond "promptly."
The parties are still waiting for her response about the commencement date of the trial. Cannon brought up the possibility of a trial timetable at a hearing earlier this month, but she has not brought it up again. She said nothing that Thursday.
Smith has asked Cannon to set a trial date for July, but Trump, the front-runner in the GOP presidential race, has insisted that the trial happen after the election.
