The judge overseeing the classified documents lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Thursday denied his motion to dismiss under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).
Trump asked in February to dismiss the lawsuit under the PRA, but his lawyers said the PRA gives him “unreviewable discretion to designate the records at issue as personal.” claimed to be a thing.Cannon found The PRA said it had failed to provide “a basis for pre-trial dismissal” and noted that counts 1 through 32 of the indictment “make no reference” to the law.
“More generally, the superseding indictment will be a lengthy indictment, embedded with excerpts from investigative interviews, photographs, and other material, specifying the nature of the charges against Trump,” she wrote. wrote. “For these reasons, accepting the allegations in the superseded indictment as true, the Presidential Records Act also provides a pretrial statute for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v) with respect to count 1.” No basis provided. Up to 32 or the remaining charges are all cognizable offenses.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith rebuked Cannon on Wednesday in a motion seeking an order directing the parties to submit draft jury instructions regarding two scenarios involving the Presidential Records Act. He said the order is based on the same “fundamentally flawed legal premise” as President Trump’s motion to dismiss, asked for clarification on the decision on legal theory, and said that if you disagree with the government’s position, He threatened to appeal. (Related: ‘Fundamentally flawed legal premise’: Jack Smith fires warning shot at judge overseeing Trump documents case)
Judge Cannon rejected Jack Smith’s request for a speedy verdict based on jury instructions, calling it “unprecedented and unjust.” pic.twitter.com/FuPqXhVQCu
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) April 4, 2024
Cannon called Smith’s request “unprecedented and unreasonable,” and noted that her order does not represent her views on defending Trump.
“A court order seeking preliminary draft instructions regarding specific requirements should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition of the material elements or defenses asserted in the case,” Cannon wrote. “This case also represents a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the competing positions of the parties and the questions that should be posed to the jury in this complex case, where first impressions are the key. It should not be construed as anything other than that.”
“As always, any party is free to utilize any appellate options it deems fit to exercise as permitted by law,” she wrote.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
