The judge in Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago records case on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss from the former President that had little chance of succeeding, but set the case up for further delay.
Denying that motion — which held that the Presidential Records Act somehow allowed Trump to hold onto reams of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago — was the straightforward part. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for the Southern District of Florida made two other decisions in the brief, three-page ruling: she denied a motion from the special counsel for a ruling on competing sets of jury instructions she had requested, and she left the door open to revisit the issue during or after trial.
The decisions come after Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded rulings from Cannon on Trump’s motion to dismiss and on the jury instructions in a fiery, late-night Tuesday court filing.
Cannon has taken months to rule on matters in the Trump classified records case which other judges would typically dispense with in weeks. Throughout, and in the Thursday filing, Cannon has lent a level of credence to Trump’s arguments, which go far beyond what experts and practitioners in the law around classified documents allow.
That’s become particularly stark in Trump’s arguments around the Presidential Records Act. There, he takes the unprecedented position that the classified records belonged to him, and not to the federal government. He argued that Cannon should disregard the Espionage Act and instead hold that the Presidential Records Act takes precedence. Cannon, in turn, has entertained his argument to a degree which continues to shock observers — most recently by ordering the two sides to prepare alternate jury instructions, both options based on bogus readings of the law.
Even in ruling against Trump, Cannon limited her order to a finding that the Presidential Records Act “does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss,” leaving the door open to dismissal attempts during or after trial.
Smith’s office had asked Cannon for a ruling on the competing jury instructions — essentially asking her to reveal whether she believed Trump’s Presidential Records Act argument.
But in the Thursday order, Cannon declined to do that, sniping back at Smith that his request for a prompt ruling was “unprecedented and unjust.”
Cannon added that her jury instruction order was simply an attempt “to better understand the parties’ competing positions” in what is a “complex case of first impression.”
Smith could always appeal if he didn’t like it, Cannon concluded:
“As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law.”
Her bizarre choose-your-own-jury-instructions adventure was “unprecedented” so pretty much everything that results from it will be unprecedented, too. As for “unjust” – what a wanker!
delay, delay, delay…
The PRA “does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss,”?? It does not provide any basis for dismissal, but then, IANAL.
Is it unrealistic to think Smith appeals this today?
“ándale”,“ándale”,“ándale”