Aileen Cannon sends 'frightening' signal by considering Trump  argument to dismiss: expert

Judge Aileen Cannon will hear former President Donald Trump's argument that he was entitled to keep any presidential documents he wanted, and a legal expert said that sends an ominous signal.

The former president's legal team has argued in court filings that the Mar-a-Lago case should be dismissed because they say the Presidential Records Act gave him the authority to decide which records he could take with him from the White House, and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin told "Morning Joe" the hearing itself was cause for concern.

"The Presidential Records Act doesn't support the interpretation and almost the perversion that Donald Trump is trying to give to it," Rubin said. "That the Presidential Records Act would hold that any number of the things Donald Trump took with him are inherently presidential and should have gone to the National Archives. There was a process to follow. The people in the White House surrounding Donald Trump were well aware of the process and in communication with the National Archives before he left the White House, let alone after it was brought to his attention, we're missing stuff – the Kim Jong Un letter, the letter Barack Obama left for [him]. That kicked off a cat-and-mouse game with the National Archives, then the FBI was chasing after Trump to collect all the things he took. As you well know, he was not honest with them at any step of the process. He deluded his own lawyers by having the boxes moved in this bizarre three-card monte he was playing with his legal team. I don't think it'll hold up."

READ MORE: Racism, arrests, extreme MAGA love: Meet Lauren Boebert’s primary opponents

"In terms of the unconstitutional vagueness of the statute here, he is talking about the willful retention of national defense documents," Rubin added. "He says, among other things, that the phrase national defense is unconstitutionally vague. He says that the unauthorized retention is another aspect of what is unconstitutionally vague here. We know this has been used to prosecute lesser stature people.

Cannon has been widely criticized for rulings that appear to favor Trump, who appears to be trying to stall all of his criminal prosecutions until after the election in hopes of ending them himself in a second term as president, and Rubin said it was alarming that the judge would even consider the ex-president's argument.

"A couple weeks ago, Judge Cannon had a hearing where she took argument from both sides, when the case should be tried," Rubin said. "She has yet to issue a scheduling order setting a trial date. In the meantime, she's hearing argument today on two motions to dismiss. I'm not a betting person, probably would make a miserable one, but the fact she set oral arguments on two motions to dismiss makes me think maybe she thinks she can get rid of this case without setting a trial date. That is frightening, given the gravity of the charges here and the evidence that supports those charges."

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubeyoutu.be