Former President Trump’s legal team is arguing that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) gives the president the authority to retain and remove documents from the White House. Defense attorney Todd Blanche stated that previous presidents, including George Washington, have taken material out of the White House without challenge. Blanche emphasized that the PRA does not provide the National Archives (NARA) with the power to question a president’s decision on document classification. The Trump team also claims that NARA’s challenge is solely based on the fact that the president in question is Donald Trump.
However, US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon expressed skepticism about dismissing the indictment based on these arguments. While she acknowledged that the defense’s points might hold some weight during a trial, she did not see how they warranted a dismissal. Judge Cannon also raised concerns about the potential implications of the Trump team’s interpretation of the PRA, suggesting that it could undermine the act by allowing presidents to classify presidential records as personal.
Blanche countered by stating that any changes to the law should be made by Congress and not by the Department of Justice (DOJ). He noted that this situation is unprecedented, as NARA has never before made a criminal referral regarding a president’s records. Blanche also highlighted the discrepancy in NARA’s treatment of President Clinton, who hid tapes in his socks without facing investigation.
DOJ prosecutor David Harbach supported NARA’s position, arguing that the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago were presidential and not personal. He emphasized that President Trump’s stance on the matter would effectively gut the PRA. Harbach also stressed the independence of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, asserting that they are not influenced by the Biden administration.
Overall, the legal battle surrounding the classification and possession of former President Trump’s documents continues. The judge’s skepticism suggests that the defense’s arguments may not be sufficient to dismiss the indictment, but the case is ongoing, and further developments are expected.
