Former President Donald Trump is anticipated to make an appearance in the courtroom on Thursday as his legal team presents arguments for the dismissal of his federal classified documents case.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon scheduled the hearing in Fort Pierce, Florida, to consider two of Trump’s motions to dismiss the case, claiming that special counsel Jack Smith’s use of the Espionage Act and application of the Presidential Records Act were unconstitutionally vague.
In response, Smith claims that the former president’s moves to dismiss the case are simply another proof of Trump’s belief that he is beyond the law.
“Trump’s claims rest on three fundamental errors, all of which reflect his view that, as a former President, the nation’s laws and principles of accountability that govern every other citizen do not apply to him,” prosecutors wrote in a filing in response to Trump’s motion to dismiss under the Presidential Record Act.
Trump’s co-defendants in the case, advisor Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira, are also scheduled to attend the court.
The full-day hearing comes one day after a Georgia judge rejected six counts in the mammoth election meddling case against Trump and 18 co-defendants, including three against the former president himself.
The ruling left Trump facing 10 counts in Georgia, where he and the other defendants pleaded not guilty to all allegations in August. Four of Trump’s co-defendants later accepted plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants in the case.
The Presidential Records Act
At the hearing on Thursday, the first motion to dismiss that Cannon will look at is related to a law that came from a time in history when a president might be charged with a crime.
The 1978 Presidential Records Act controls who owns presidential records and how they are kept safe. It was made law in the years after the Watergate scandal, when lawmakers were afraid that President Richard Nixon would destroy records when he left office.
Trump’s lawyers have said that the law gave Trump the power to label the papers in question as personal, which meant that he could legally keep them at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“President Trump was still the President of the United States when, for example, many of the documents at issue were packed (presumably by the GSA), transported, and delivered to Mar-A-Lago,” a filing from Trump’s lawyers said.
Additionally, defense attorneys have argued that the law does not permit the filing of criminal charges and that Trump, not National Archives staff members, had the final say in how to handle presidential records after the president leaves office.
“DOJ and NARA have adopted this position with respect to government officials whose last name is not Trump,” the filing said about the Justice Department and the National Archives and Records Administration.
Smith wrote in his filing in response to this argument that the records at issue are definitely presidential records and not Trump’s personal records. He also said that Trump is trying to say that the law doesn’t apply to him.
“Even if the raft of highly classified documents that Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago were somehow categorized as ‘personal’ under the PRA, that would not render his retention of those documents ‘authorized,'” Smith said.
They used parts of special counsel Robert Hur’s report about President Joe Biden’s keeping of secret documents, which Biden was not charged with, to argue that punishing Trump for keeping documents is unfair and based on revenge.
“There is far too much indeterminacy around the meaning of ‘unauthorized possession’ with respect to President Trump and the types of documents at issue,” the filing stated.
To this end, the prosecutors said that the law is very clear and that Trump should have known that since he was previously commander-in-chief. Prosecutors said that Trump’s efforts to slow down and block the investigation were also clear signs that he was breaking the law.
“The statute’s prohibitions are clear,” the document said. “And as a former President, Trump could not have failed to understand the paramount importance of protecting the nation’s national security and military secrets, including the obligations not to take unauthorized possession of, or willfully retain, national defense information.”
The Espionage Act
Defense lawyers have also contended that the section of the Espionage Act pertaining to the retention of defense materials becomes constitutionally ambiguous when it is applied to former President Trump.
Defense lawyers argue that the section of the law in question is incredibly confusing and complex, making it problematic to charge Trump under it. They contend that doing so would violate due process principles and the separation of powers, which are the key concerns of the vagueness doctrine.
They contended that punishing Trump for retaining papers amounts to selective and vindictive prosecution, citing portions of special counsel Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s retention of secret materials, for which Biden was not indicted.
“There is far too much indeterminacy around the meaning of ‘unauthorized possession’ with respect to President Trump and the types of documents at issue,” according to the brief.
Prosecutors reacted by contending that the statute is plainly unambiguous and that Trump should have understood this given his previous role as commander-in-chief. Prosecutors said Trump’s efforts to delay and impede the probe were also clear indications that he was breaking the law.
“The statute’s prohibitions are clear,” the filing stated. “And as a former President, Trump could not have failed to understand the paramount importance of protecting the nation’s national security and military secrets, including the obligations not to take unauthorized possession of, or willfully retain, national defense information.”
An uncertain trial date
The trial is set to begin in mid-May, but Judge Cannon recently conducted a hearing to discuss the possibility of rescheduling it. Smith’s legal team suggested July 8 as a new date, whereas Trump’s lawyers insisted on having the trial after the 2024 presidential election.
Cannon has not made any rulings or formal scheduling changes with regards to the trial’s start date, which is still set for May 20.
The judge emphasized that there is a significant amount of work to be completed during the pretrial phase of this case.
It’s unclear whether Cannon would discuss the trial date at Thursday’s hearing, as Trump’s legal schedule continues to fill up. The former president is set to stand trial in New York on March 25 on allegations of falsifying company records in connection with a hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. He has denied any misconduct.
