- Donald Trump is facing trial in Florida on classified document charges
- His lawyers want the case dismissed
- There are questions about the special counsel who investigated the allegations
- Now, the judge wants more information from both legal teams
(NewsReady.com) – Right now, the mainstream media is in a frenzy over former president Donald Trump’s New York conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business documents. However, many people, including plenty of Democrats, believe the case was politically motivated, and a lot of voters are unconvinced of Trump’s guilt. Meanwhile, a potentially much more serious case related to classified documents has been indefinitely paused. Now, the judge overseeing it has asked the prosecution and defense teams to submit more evidence about the investigation that led to Trump’s indictment.
Judge On Documents Case Takes Her Job Seriously
On June 8 last year, Trump was indicted on 37 charges related to mishandling classified documents, making false statements, and conspiring to obstruct justice. Pretrial proceedings began in July 2023, with the trial itself due to start on May 20, 2024. Trump’s legal team filed a series of motions to dismiss the case, two of which were quickly rejected by federal judge Eileen Cannon. However, on February 22, the former president’s lawyers submitted a new motion claiming that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led the investigation, had been unlawfully appointed and funded, in violation of the Appointments and Appropriations clauses of the US Constitution.
On May 7, Cannon, a Trump appointee, canceled the planned start date of the trial and said it would be “imprudent” to set a new date while there were still pretrial issues outstanding. In effect, the trial is on hold until Cannon is satisfied both sides are ready. Trump’s attorneys are using this time to push their dismissal motion, and Cannon may be listening.
The court is due to hear the latest motion to dismiss on July 21. Now, Cannon has asked both legal teams to submit briefs on July 11 to explain how they think a recent Supreme Court decision could affect the Appropriations Clause argument. On May 29 the court ruled that the fact the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is directly funded by the Federal Reserve doesn’t violate the Constitution. There’s no doubt the CFPB doesn’t follow the standard funding scheme for federal agencies, but the Supreme Court seems to have decided that this isn’t always a problem.
From Trump’s point of view, it’s a hopeful sign that Cannon is willing to take a close look at the arguments for dismissal. Nobody could accuse her of being biased in favor of Trump—after all, she rejected the previous motions—but she doesn’t show any signs of being biased against him either. After the openly political Manhattan trial, that will be a breath of fresh air for the defense team.
Copyright 2024, NewsReady.com
