Aileen Cannon indicates that argument from ex-president’s attorneys that law is too vague is question for jury at trial

Aileen Cannon indicates that argument from ex-president’s attorneys that law is too vague is question for jury at trial

The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution on charges of retaining classified documents has rejected an effort by his lawyers to throw out the case, indicating that their argument that the law is too vague is a question for a jury at trial.

The two-page ruling from the US district judge Aileen Cannon came on Thursday evening after a daylong hearing in federal court in Fort Pierce, Florida. Throughout the hearing, Cannon expressed reservations about the former president’s complaints against the case.

Trump had asked the judge to dismiss the indictment on several fronts, including one dubious argument that the Espionage Act was “unconstitutionally vague” because it gave insufficient notice of the penalties for a former president retaining classified documents.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    13·
    8 months ago

    one dubious argument that the Espionage Act was “unconstitutionally vague” because it gave insufficient notice of the penalties for a former president retaining classified documents.

    Even a kid knows what “classified” means. It’s slightly higher up on the competency test than “whale”, though