Federal prosecutors have clashed with the judge overseeing former President Trump’s case involving classified documents, accusing her of relying on a flawed legal premise in potential jury instructions. The judge had requested hypothetical instructions from both sides on scenarios where Trump argued he could keep sensitive documents under the Presidential Records Act.
The prosecutors argue that the Presidential Records Act is irrelevant to Trump’s case and that he was not authorized to possess highly classified documents under the Espionage Act. They claim that the documents found at Mar-a-Lago were not designated as personal by Trump and therefore should not be protected.
Frustration with the judge’s handling of the case is mounting, as she has yet to rule on defense motions to dismiss the indictment or resolve disagreements between the two sides. The trial date remains uncertain, fueling speculation that the case may linger until after the November presidential election.
The judge recently rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss charges based on “unconstitutional vagueness,” indicating that the argument might have merit during the trial but not as grounds for dismissal. Prosecutors challenged the judge’s interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, emphasizing that it does not grant former presidents the authority to possess classified documents under the Espionage Act.
Prosecutors have warned of appealing if the judge proceeds with her order on jury instructions, signaling a possible escalation in the legal battle. The ongoing conflict highlights the complexities and high stakes involved in the case against Trump. Stay tuned to Jala News for further updates on this developing story.
“Zombie enthusiast. Subtly charming travel practitioner. Webaholic. Internet expert.”