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.
If she threw it it the prosecutor could appeal and possibly have her removed from the case. She can do more damage in charge.
Well naturally, She cannot continue to literally be a traitor if the ball leaves her court.
The strategy here is to keep the trial going long enough until she can take a big swing like this close enough to the election that they won’t be able to retry the case in time before election day.
Right?
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
No, he’s got a point. We need to go rewrite every law and clarify if the president is excluded or not. /s
