Trump demands judge toss classified documents charges: What to know

Former President Trump asked for the classified documents charges to be dismissed in seven separate motions filed late Thursday asserting presidential immunity and other defenses.

Some of the motions filed ahead of President Trump’s Thursday deadline have been made public, while others will remain sealed for several days until the parties discuss necessary edits.

Many of Trump’s immunity claims and other defenses are based on motions he made while special counsel Jack Smith prosecuted Trump separately in Washington, D.C., on charges related to his overturning of the 2020 election results. is imitating.

Some of the other defenses are specific to classified documents cases, where President Trump faces 40 felonies for mishandling classified records and attempting to prevent the government from retrieving them. Mr. Trump has maintained his innocence.

Here’s what you need to know about Trump’s defense team’s arguments.

presidential privilege

Trump is charged with 32 counts of knowingly retaining national defense information, all of which correspond to documents that Trump allegedly brought to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after taking office. They argue that the law should be abolished because it has presidential privileges.

The former president claims that before he left the White House, he designated the records in question as personal under the Presidential Records Act.

“President Trump’s decision to designate the records as private and have them removed from the White House clearly constitutes an official act within the ‘periphery’ of the president’s official duties,” said Trump attorney Todd Blanche. Chris Kiss wrote. in court papers.

Trump has advanced a nearly identical immunity argument in the Washington, D.C., criminal case. But he has so far failed to convince judges or appellate panels. The matter has since gone to the Supreme Court, which has not yet agreed to take up the case but could announce at any time how it will proceed.

Trump’s lawyers in the classified documents case argued the decision against the former president was wrong, citing the ongoing battle.

“The D.C. Circuit’s analysis is unpersuasive for a number of reasons discussed below, and President Trump has no choice but to pursue his erroneous decision, including en banc review if granted and, if necessary, review by the U.S. Supreme Court.” “This court should not defer to the D.C. Circuit’s non-binding and ill-founded decision,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the motion.

unconstitutional ambiguity

If the immunity claim is rejected, Trump will then argue that the same 32 counts of intentional detention applied to the former president should be thrown out because they are “unconstitutional and vague.”

To prove the charges, prosecutors argued at trial that the documents in question were “national defense-related,” that Trump was in his “unauthorized possession,” and that the records were turned over to federal officials who were “qualified to receive them.” It must be shown that there was no such thing.

But Trump’s lawyers focused on those three phrases in their motion to dismiss, calling them “problematic language” that would confuse jurors and violate Trump’s due process rights.

“Since at least 1941, courts in cases with less vexing features than this case have recognized serious flaws in language. [the charge] He endeavored to “preserve” this law. That approach is inconsistent with the due process principles and separation of powers concerns that animate the principle of ambiguity. ” Trump’s lawyer wrote.

They also separately argued that one of the 32 document storage charges should be dismissed on other grounds. That means President Trump maintained security clearance to view that particular record.

“anything [the charge] In other words, although there is much ambiguity as to whether it violates the Constitution, the Authorization Clause does not prohibit holders of valid security clearances from possessing documents, and a person with the appropriate level of authorization may intentionally cannot violate the statute,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Appeal to Mr. Smith’s appointment

Trump also argued that Special Counsel Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, was illegally appointed and the entire case should be dismissed.

“The Appointments Clause does not allow the Attorney General to appoint private citizens and like-minded political allies to exercise U.S. prosecutorial powers without Senate confirmation. without authority to prosecute,” Branch and Kise wrote in their complaint.

That’s a long-standing argument made by law professors Stephen Calabresi and Gary Lawson, who hold leadership roles at the conservative Federalist Society. They previously argued that the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller into President Trump and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was unconstitutional for the same reason.

the professors submitted friend of the court brief Mr. Trump’s D.C. criminal case argued that Mr. Smith’s appointment was invalid, but the panel of judges did not act on the concerns.

Other defensive measures

Trump’s lawyers said they have filed three additional motions to dismiss, which have not yet been made public due to redaction concerns.

Lawyers from both sides will discuss the redactions privately. The judge gave the parties until February 29 to file objections, meaning the documents are unlikely to be made public until at least then.

But in open court documents, Mr. Trump’s lawyers laid out the basic thrust of those sealed arguments.

As in other criminal cases, Mr. Trump argues that he is being prosecuted selectively and retaliatoryly for political reasons. He asked the judge to order additional discovery that would provide further “evidence of bias and political animus.”

President Trump has also alleged prosecutorial misconduct, highlighting how the FBI, National Archives and Records Administration and other agencies were involved in the investigation. The former president alleges it resulted in due process violations, an unacceptable delay in filing charges, and an abuse of the grand jury process.

Finally, Trump’s lawyers are holding back the FBI from executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 to search for remaining classified materials. The materials recovered during the search are the core of the prosecution’s case.

Blanche and Kise called the search unconstitutional, saying the warrant contained “misleading omissions” and that law enforcement had unfairly violated attorney-client privilege in the investigation. Ta.

Mr. Smith’s team will ultimately respond to Mr. Trump’s allegations in a court filing. But Smith has rejected the former president’s immunity claims in a separate lawsuit, and his team has argued that politics played no role in the job.