Donald Trump has been having a complicated week with the judicial system. The former president first had the gag order extended in the case of the alleged secret payment to Stormy Daniels. Then, they rejected his request to postpone the trial in the same case, and now they have dismissed his request to annul the classified documents case.
Judge Aileen Cannon rejected Trump's legal team's request to dismiss the classified documents case because she understood that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) does not protect the Republican's actions.
"The Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss," she wrote in a three-page ruling, adding that, given the facts presented to her, the legislation did not apply.
BREAKING: Florida Judge Cannon has just rejected Trump's attempt to dismiss charges of allegedly mishandling classified documents, stating that the Presidential Records Act doesn't shield him from prosecution.
NOTE: She defended her approach amid frustration from prosecutors… pic.twitter.com/CTX1rkrgrY
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) April 4, 2024
Trump is currently being prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which prohibits the intentional withholding of classified national defense information. In turn, he is accused of obstruction of justice for trying to hide the records from the authorities after they demanded their return.
A call to attention to special prosecutor Jack Smith
In his request to the judge, the special prosecutor asked that the case continue and recommended "finalizing the jury instructions." In other words, not allowing the jury to consider the PRA.
This did not sit well with Cannon, who noted that the request was "unjust and unprecedented," in addition to leaving the door open for the defense to argue based on the Presidential Records Act in front of the jury.
"To the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust," the judge ruled.
