After a full day hearing arguments related to two motions by Donald Trump’s legal teams to dismiss his classified documents case, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has denied one motion without prejudice.
That ruling was in relation to Team Trump’s claim that it wasn’t clear at the time Trump took the sensitive material if the act was illegal or not, claiming there was “unconstitutional vagueness.”
The argument had little sway with the Trump-appointed judge.
“Although the Motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the Court ultimately determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged,” Cannon wrote in a two-page order, further noting that the issue of constitutional vagueness would be better brought up with “jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.”
Her ruling, however, leaves wiggle room for Trump’s attorneys to potentially reargue the position down the line.
Even though the motion is off the table for now, Trump still has several other attempts to dismiss the trial in the works. The rest of Thursday was spent arguing another such motion on the basis that the classified documents could be considered “personal materials” rather than presidential under the Presidential Records Act—a defense that special counsel Jack Smith’s office roundly rejected.
Smith’s office also claimed that Trump’s “personal records” argument was suggestive that the GOP presidential nominee believes he’s beyond reproach and above the law. Cannon herself expressed skepticism at leveraging the statute to dismiss the case outright, though ultimately she determined that the issue would be better left for a jury to decide.
“It’s difficult to see how this gets you to the dismissal of an indictment,” the judge told Trump’s attorney Thursday afternoon.
But the trial, which was originally set to begin on May 20, still does not have a renewed court date.
Legal analysts have worried that a strategy of continual delays could be the Trump-appointed judge’s way of surreptitiously dismissing the trial altogether.
“She has yet to issue a scheduling order setting a trial date,” MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin said on Morning Joe on Thursday. “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.”
