Federal prosecutors are challenging Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of former President Trump’s classified documents case in Florida, saying she is mistaken in her request for hypothetical jury instructions that rest on a flawed legal premise. The judge asked the attorneys to respond to scenarios where Trump argued he had the right to retain sensitive documents under the Presidential Records Act. Prosecutors argue that this act is not relevant to Trump’s case and that he was not authorized under the Espionage Act to take classified documents to his Mar-a-Lago home when he left the White House. They warned that they would appeal if the judge proceeds with her order on jury instructions.
Prosecutors claim that documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago were not personal and that there is no evidence Trump ever designated them as such. They allege that Trump only made this argument after it became public knowledge that he possessed these documents and that no witnesses interviewed for the investigation supported the president’s claims. The prosecutors expressed frustration with Judge Cannon’s handling of the case, particularly her decision to grant Trump’s request for an independent arbiter to review the documents obtained during an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago.
The Trump-appointed judge has not yet ruled on defense motions to dismiss the indictment or other disagreements between the two sides, and the trial date remains unsettled. The prosecutors argue that the case has overwhelming evidence and could remain unresolved by the November presidential election. Cannon dismissed Trump’s motion to dismiss charges on the grounds of “unconstitutional vagueness,” stating that his arguments might have some force at trial but would not lead to a dismissal. The judge also criticized the defense team’s interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, saying it would essentially undermine the act by giving presidents the ability to classify presidential records as personal.
Judge Cannon requested that prosecutors and defense attorneys draft jury instructions based on the premise that a president has sole authority under the Presidential Records Act to categorize records as personal or presidential during their presidency. Prosecutors argued that this interpretation is incorrect and asked the judge to swiftly reject the defense’s remaining motion to dismiss. They believe that the distinction between personal and presidential records under the PRA should not play a role in the trial or the jury instructions related to the Espionage Act. The documents case is one of four pending criminal cases against Trump, and he has pleaded not guilty in all of them.
In conclusion, federal prosecutors are challenging the judge’s handling of Trump’s classified documents case, arguing that her request for hypothetical jury instructions is based on a flawed legal premise. They claim that the Presidential Records Act is not relevant to Trump’s case and that he was not authorized to possess classified documents under the Espionage Act. Prosecutors believe that Judge Cannon’s interpretations of the law are incorrect and have expressed frustration with her decisions in the case. The trial date remains uncertain, and there are unresolved issues between the defense and prosecution. Trump’s defense team has argued that he had the right to retain the documents as personal records, but prosecutors dispute this claim and warn that they will appeal if the judge proceeds with her instructions.
