Though Judge Aileen Cannon decided not to toss out the classified document case against former President Donald Trump over “unconstitutional vagueness,” RealClearInvestigations’ Julie Kelly reported from the courtroom that Special Counsel Robert Hur’s decision not to prosecute Biden for his mishandling of classified document was brought up as an example of “arbitrary enforcement.” Kelly also predicted that the case might be tossed on another basis.
As background, on Thursday, March 14, Judge Cannon heard motions from Trump’s lawyers that the law under which Trump was being charged was vague and unclear, with such ambiguity leading to “selective” enforcement of it by the Department of Justice. Trump’s team claimed that such an opportunity for “selective” enforcement meant he was charged while others have avoided prosecution.
Judge Cannon denied the motion. She ruled that Trump’s team’s argument is one that is better suited to be addressed later during the process “in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.”
However, while Judge Cannon ruled against this motion, reporter Julie Kelly posted on X from the South Florida courthouse that the situation was far from being all good news for Jack Smith. She wrote, “NEW: From FLA courthouse in Trump’s classified documents case with a prediction. Robert Hur report and testimony is the biggest elephant in the room. The term “arbitrary enforcement” used frequently by both the defense and Judge Aileen Cannon.”
She continued, explaining what issue Judge Cannon had with Jack Smith’s case, “Cannon hammered the fact no former president or vice president has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information–which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith’s indictment.”
Then, giving a prediction about what will happen, Kelly wrote, “Prediction: Cannon won’t dismiss the case based on the motions debated today–vagueness of Espionage Act and protection under the Presidential Records Act. But it’s very likely she will dismiss the case based on selective prosecution, a motion still pending before her.”
In a later tweet in the thread, Kelly commented on the courtroom spat over that allegedly “arbitrary” enforcement and how , saying, “Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar conduct. Bratt of course said there is none. She added “vice president” on numerous occasions for a reason–Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all skated on criminal charges. Trump is the only one who has not.”
Continuing in that tweet, Kelly claimed, “Cannon: “Arbitrary enforcement…is featuring in this case.” Cannon also addressed the “foreseeability” as to Trump’s awareness he was committing a crime by keeping classified/national defense information. “Given the constellation of what happened before”–meaning no criminal prosecution of former presidents including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and vice presidents–Cannon suggested Trump could have reasonably expected he was in the clear.”
NBC News noted that Cannon seemed at least somewhat sympathetic to the “arbitrary” enforcement argument, reporting, “Cannon at times seemed more sympathetic to Trump’s arguments and noted that no other former president has faced criminal charges related to the law. ‘There has never been a situation remotely similar to this one,’ Jay Bratt of the special counsel’s office responded.”
Featured image credit: By United States Department of Justice – This file has been extracted from another file, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=132849708
"*" indicates required fields