'Sensible ruling': Internet divided as judge rejects Trump's bid to dismiss classified documents case

FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA: A judge rejected former President Donald Trump's bid to dismiss the classified documents prosecution against him, denying his arguments on the Presidential Records Act, reported NBC News.

US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, on Thursday, April 4, wrote the indictment against the GOP presumptive nominee "make no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense."

"For these reasons, accepting the allegations of the Superseding Indictment as true, the Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss," she wrote in a three-page ruling.

The 1978 Presidential Records Act requires presidents, upon the end of their term, to submit presidential records to the federal government but allows them to keep purely personal documents. Trump's attorneys had used this statute, requesting the judge to toss out the criminal indictment, according to the Associated Press.

Special counsel Jack Smith's team had questioned the argument, pointing out that the documents the ex-president retained at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach were not personal, which he failed to return after leaving the office in 2021.

Judge leaves room for future use of defense argument

Cannon is seemingly entertaining Trump's claim on presidential records to dismiss the case. She asked the prosecution and the defense to prepare jury instructions to address two scenarios about considering national security documents as personal.

Though special counsel Smith called the argument "fundamentally flawed," the judge wrote in her latest ruling, "The Court's Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case."

"Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties' competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression," Cannon added.

She also denied the prosecutors' demand to finalize jury instructions before the trial and presentation of evidence, stating it was "unprecedented and unjust".

Besides rejecting Trump's latest arguments, Cannon in March denied a separate motion that requested to dismiss the case, citing constitutional vagueness.

The trial was initially set to start on May 20, but Cannon has often indicated that she would push back the date and heard arguments from both sides to pick a new one. She has not yet ruled on a new date.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the dozens of counts in the classified documents case along with the three other indictments over his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election result, including the January 6 Capitol attack and the New York hush-money case.

Judge's ruling splits Internet

Social media users responded to the ruling with opposing opinions, one defending the court's decision and the other supporting Trump.

One user wrote, "Judge Cannon actually made a sensible ruling."

Whereas another user remarked, "Just send it to the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t even mess around with these jokes of judges. All of em are so corrupt they can’t even fix their own juridical areas from serious crimes like gangs, drugs, sex trafficking, etc."

"Looks like someone's going to have to face the music! Time to play fair, no more playing hide and seek with those classified documents," a third user added.

While a fourth response read, "Innocent until proven guilty."

Someone else claimed, "She continues to deliver for Trump, stalling and delaying rulings. Appeal to the 11th Circuit and have her removed from this case."

"Well, looks like Trump's attempt to dodge the charges didn't quite pan out. Tough break, but actions have consequences!" an individual stated.

While one called it "Election interference."

Another user added, "Shocking move by Cannon but finally starting to make the right decisions here."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.