(CN) — A federal judge rejected Donald Trump’s arguments that he was immune from prosecution for retaining classified documents under the Presidential Records Act.
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon wrote in an order Thursday that federal prosecutors had enough evidence to prosecute Trump for violations of the Espionage Act and other obstruction-related offenses.
The judge’s order came two days after special counsel Jack Smith filed a biting response asking the Trump appointee for a swift decision on the issue. Smith said continued delay would hurt his ability to seek an appeal if she ruled against him.
Cannon offered a pointed response in the three-page order, while defending her decision to ask attorneys to file proposed jury instructions that seemed to favor Trump's interpretation of the Presidential Records Act.
The order for jury instructions was not intended to suggest she would permit the arguments at trial, Cannon wrote, but instead was an attempt “to better understand the parties’ competing positions” in a complex and novel case.
“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,” she wrote.
Trump’s attorneys argued at a March 14 court hearing in Fort Pierce, Florida, that their client was protected from prosecution under the Presidential Records Act.
The 1978 law gives the president broad authority to determine if records created during his term are presidential or personal, they claimed. While presidential records must be sent to the National Archives and Records Administration, personal records can be retained after leaving office.
Prosecutors argued the law did not apply to documents containing national secrets. Further, Trump never designated as personal the classified records he stored at Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Palm Beach, Florida.
Thursday’s decision appeared to head off a confrontation between Cannon and the special counsel’s office, which has expressed frustration with the case’s progress.
The judge still has not decided on a trial date, which was originally scheduled for May 20, and several other motions remain to be decided.
Follow @SteveGarrisonPC
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Xi tells Blinken US, China should be ‘partners, not rivals’ April 26, 2024 -
A dangerous man named Kennedy April 26, 2024
