OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Former President Donald Trump appeared in a Florida federal courtroom on Thursday, accompanying his legal team as they aim to have the classified documents case dismissed.
Trump’s attorneys are set to argue on Thursday before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in her Fort Pierce courtroom to dismiss the case based on their claim of special counsel Jack Smith’s vague application of the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act.
Federal prosecutors have countered, however, stating in a filing: “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.”
Accompanying Trump in the courtroom will be his co-defendants, aide Walt Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. The hearing comes after Fulton County, Ga., Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed several counts in an election interference case against Trump and his co-defendants, leaving the former president still facing 10 counts.
At the core of Thursday’s hearing lies the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted after the Watergate scandal. Trump’s legal team contends that the law empowered him to designate the disputed documents as personal property, thus justifying his retention of them at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Furthermore, Trump’s defense argues that the Espionage Act, especially regarding the retention of defense materials, lacks clarity and amounts to a violation of due process when applied to the former president. They will advocate for dismissal, citing an alleged inconsistency in the law’s application by referencing President Joe Biden’s retention of classified documents without facing charges and citing parts of special counsel Robert Hur’s report.
The trial has initially been set for May, but it could be delayed even further.
If the judge decides in favor of the defense, the classified documents trial would be dead in all likelihood.
“Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts draws support directly from the text of the Constitution, as the Impeachment Judgment Clause states that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by the U.S. Senate,” the attorneys argued in one of their motions.
In another filing, they said that the Presidential Records Act “conferred unreviewable discretion on President Trump to designate the records at issue as personal,” which means he was allowed to have the documents, they believe.
But Smith and his team have made counterarguments to say that the case should not be dismissed.
“Whatever authorization a former president may have to possess his records, that authority does not override the legal requirements that attach to classified information,” prosecutors said in one filing.
The prosecutors warned that if the judge decides in favor of Trump, it could have “sobering” consequences for the nation.
“Under his view, a president could direct the Special Forces to murder his principal political opponent. He could accept a bribe in exchange for steering a lucrative government contract to the bribe-payer, and he could sell classified information to an adversary, and as long as he was not impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, he could act with impunity,” prosecutors said.
“And the enlargement of immunity that he offers in this case—protecting not only acts during the presidency but telescoping outward to shield post-presidency conduct—would be particularly dangerous, setting the stage for all manner of reckless and forward-looking criminal acts during the final days of a president’s term,” they said.
The decision to hear the motion to dismiss came after the court allowed third-party amicus briefs in the case.
“The court has reviewed the motions and finds that the proposed amici bring to the court’s attention [a] relevant matter that may be of considerable help to the court in resolving the cited pretrial motions,” Cannon said. “The amicus briefs are accepted for court consideration.”
