'Never getting to trial before the election': Latest Trump hearing leaves expert dubious
As Donald Trump's lawyers and Jack Smith argued Thursday about when the former president will face trial in the classified documents case, an onlooker expressed skepticism.
"This case is never getting to trial before the election," NBC News reporter Ken Dilanian said.
He commented after a hearing in Florida in which Trump's lawyers suggested the trial could begin in September when Judge Aileen Cannon asked both sides for their ideal start date. The Trump lawyers then quickly withdrew it, insisting that they instead must have the first court dates after the November election.
Special counsel Jack Smith's team proposed an August start date.
"The current [trial] date is not happening obviously because there is so much litigation and motions practice left to have in this case," Dilanian said, referring to the May 20 date that it had originally been scheduled for.
"[Cannon's] really dragging it out. Some people argue she's just an inexperienced judge and not used to dealing with complex matters about classified information and taking her time. The result of that is that this case is taking a long time to get to trial."
Legal analysts bashed the arguments from motions filed Thursday morning in which Trump's lawyers claim the Presidential Records Act gives him the authority to make any classified documents "personal." One previous argument was that as president, he could declassify anything — even Trump's lawyers struggled to explain that claim.
ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene to federal election regulators: get bent over ‘MTG’
On Thursday, reports cited Judge Cannon as being "skeptical" of Trump's argument.
"Another argument is a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague," Dilanian explained. "It's a long shot. It's a law used hundreds of times to prosecute people who have taken home or leaked classified documents. It's pretty well established."
Cannon told those in court she would rule "promptly" on the motions.
Legal analyst Lisa Rubin and former Manhattan prosecutor Catherine A. Christian noted a moment in the hearing in which Cannon asked why the National Archives didn't immediately begin asking Trump for the records when he left the White House.
"That's not the way the Presidential Records Act works," said Rubin. "The Presidential Records Act essentially says when you leave your term of office, everything that belongs to your presidency, all of those records, are in the legal custody of the National Archives, even if it takes some time to transfer them to their custody. So, Cannon is betraying sort of a lack of understanding of how the law works."
Rubin explained that the special counsel's office then used the opportunity to remind Cannon how the law works and that, once the National Archives knew that documents were missing, they were working to retrieve them.
Christian agreed with lawyers who criticize Cannon for having a hearing at all, given that the matters could be handled through paperwork. However, she said, Cannon isn't the experienced judge that Tanya Chutkan, the jurist overseeing Trump's election interference case in D.C., is.
"This is a judge who also had been reversed two times. Some judges want you to brief everything. Have a hearing on everything because of the fear of being reversed," said Christian. "They want to make sure that they've been ... fair to both sides. A generous view is that Judge Cannon is — she's taking her time because she doesn't want to make a mistake."
See the analysis below or at the link here.
Leave a Comment
Related Post