U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a hearing for Thursday to address the motions filed by former President Donald Trump to dismiss the classified documents case.
The upcoming hearing will center around two main issues: Trump’s motion to dismiss classified documents counts 1-32 based on claims of unconstitutional vagueness, and Trump+Nauta’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on the Presidential Records Act. This development suggests that Judge Cannon might be considering whether to grant subsequent evidentiary hearings, a request made by Trump but opposed by the Special Counsel.
In a decisive move, Special Counsel Jack Smith has firmly dismissed President Trump’s assertion that he had the authority to label government records as personal, citing the Presidential Records Act.
Smith argued that the documents marked classified were unquestionably presidential in nature, rather than personal. He further emphasized that Trump did not have the proper authorization to possess any classified records. In addition, Smith’s filing refuted any claims that suggested otherwise.
Lisa Rubin, a legal analyst for MSNBC, raised doubts about Cannon’s decision to choose the Presidential Records Act motion, along with another motion regarding the constitutional ambiguity of the first 32 counts in the indictment. This choice was made from the seven motions that Trump’s team had submitted.
Rubin questioned the reason behind her choice. One possibility is that she may be aiming to dismiss the case. However, she might want to avoid basing the dismissal on constitutional immunity grounds. The concern is that if the Supreme Court were to uphold the decision of the DC Circuit, she would not be able to oppose it as she would be overturned.
Rubin explained that she believes the judge is searching for another reason to dismiss the case. According to Rubin, the argument based on the Presidential Records Act is completely baseless. Trump often compares it to the “Clinton socks case,” which involved audio tapes made by Bill Clinton with a biographer. However, the judge in that case considered the tapes to be more like diaries, which are exempt from the Presidential Records Act. Therefore, the comparison is not valid. It will be interesting to see how this argument unfolds on Thursday, but Rubin wonders why these two motions are being focused on specifically.
