Judge appears skeptical of Trump’s attempts to derail the documents case

The federal judge overseeing the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump on charges of mishandling classified documents expressed strong reservations Thursday about some of the requests his lawyers filed to have the case dismissed.

During a nearly daylong hearing in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, heard arguments from defense attorneys and from prosecutors in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office on two of the more unorthodox attacks the former president. about the federal indictment.

One such attack by Mr. Trump’s team was a direct, if questionable, attack on the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, which the administration says Mr. Trump violated 32 times through a trove of highly sensitive classified material from the White House. Remove house after leaving office.

In the other attack, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that under a law known as the Presidential Records Act, Mr. Trump classified the documents he took as his own personal property and thus could not be accused of possession without permission.

But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump near the end of his term, seemed skeptical of both claims. As Mr. Trump and Mr. Smith sat across from her on opposite sides of the courtroom, she said it would be an “extraordinary” step if a judge were to unilaterally strike down the Espionage Act, the key federal law governing the handling of classified documents. material.

She also said that while Trump could argue at trial that the documents he was accused of possessing were actually his, it was “hard to see” how that argument justified throwing out the entire case before it went to a jury.

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump’s lawyers have filed a barrage of motions to dismiss the case, using a sort of kitchen sink approach that has tackled the suit from every conceivable angle — not to mention what many lawyers say some could consider unthinkable. also.

Beyond his attack on the Espionage Act and his claims about the Presidential Records Act, Mr. Trump has questioned the legality of Mr. Smith’s appointment and argued — without evidence — that President Biden personally ordered prosecutions against him as a way to sink his 2024 campaign.

Mr. Trump has also claimed that he is fully protected from the charges by presidential immunity, even though he was no longer president when almost all of the actions mentioned in the indictment took place.

Overall, the motions are an aggressive and often far-fetched attempt to avoid responsibility for holding onto what prosecutors have described as some of the country’s most closely guarded secrets, and to question the government’s authority to submit the case to the court. first place.

Mr. Trump’s arguments have portrayed the prosecution as illegal and unfair from the start, reflecting, as one of Mr. Smith’s surrogates recently wrote, “his view that, as a former president, the laws and principles of accountability of nation that controls every other citizen does not apply to him.”

As Judge Cannon spent much of the day peppering the defense and prosecution with detailed questions about key phrases in the Espionage Act and about exactly how Mr. Trump went about classifying the documents he took as personal property, one important topic she did not bring up: the timing of the trial.

Two weeks ago, Judge Cannon held a hearing, ostensibly to choose a new trial date, but she has not yet made a decision.