Judge Cannon Rebuts Trump’s Bid to Dismiss Document Retention Charges

Pushing back on former President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss allegations associated with retaining classified documents, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon expressed skepticism during proceedings on Thursday. 

The defense’s claims grounded on perceived constitutionality ambiguity are now under scrutiny, marking a significant juncture in the case.

The Basis of Contention

The issue arises from one of two motions presented by Trump’s defense counsel, the other motion based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), awaits judgment. 

Trump’s defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, proposed that the PRA grants a president the authority to keep any documents they consider appropriate, potentially even carrying them outside the White House premises.

The Trump team further emphasizes that the moving of these boxes occurred during Trump’s tenure, marking this case as a unique instance where the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has challenged a sitting president’s choice about which documents are deemed personal versus presidential.

Read More: IBM Vice Chairman Challenges Biden’s Billionaire Tax; Highlights Income vs Wealth Disparity

Judge Cannon’s Stand

Reacting to Blanche’s arguments, Judge Cannon apprehended, “All that might be right. But I don’t see how it leads to a dismissal of the indictment… Maybe a defense at trial…”. She countered that the government must substantiate that the possession of said documents was not permitted.

However, revealing her skepticism, Judge Cannon reiterated that these propositions might be impactful during the trial, but it was unlikely to warrant a dismissal. 

She commented, hinting that if Trump’s interpretation of the Presidential Records Act is held valid, it could effectively dilute the PRA, granting presidents unrestricted powers to classify unequivocally presidential records as personal.

A Novel Legal Scenario

Amid these arguments, Blanche disclosed that the distinct nature of the case contributed to the lack of case law, as such a situation has never occurred before. 

He added, “While he was the president, he took records, like many presidents … NARA took a different path for the first time and made a criminal referral instead of negotiating with the president as had been done in the past.”

Further, Blanche criticized NARA for not probing into potential national defense information in President Clinton’s possession contrasted with its unprecedented action against President Trump – a move seen as unequal treatment.

Also Read: China’s New Directive: Insolvent Property Giants to Face Bankruptcy Amid Sector Shake-Up

Prosecution Views

DOJ prosecutor David Harbach asserted that the paperwork seized at Mar-a-Lago was “not personal, nowhere close to that… The only inference is that they were presidential, not personal.” 

Echoing Judge Cannon’s concerns, Harbach affirmed that President Trump’s stance could potentially undermine the PRA.

Assuring the court of Special Counsel Smith’s investigative independence, Harbach underlined, “We are not appendages or puppets of the Biden Administration.”

As the legal back-and-forth continues, it remains to see how the case will unroll and impact future instances of defining presidential vs personal records. 

Through a nuanced dissection of legislation and presidential precedents, this case promises to throw light on uncharted territories, enhancing our understanding of the PRA and its practical implications.

Read Next: Defying Trump, GOP Moves Forward with TikTok Restrictions

Drew Blankenship

Drew Blankenship is a cryptocurrency investor, family man, father and lifelong automotive enthusiast. He lives in North Carolina with his wife, daughter and their dog Enzo.