FORT PIERCE, Florida – Federal prosecutors and attorneys for former President Donald Trump and two of his employees convened in a Fort Pierce federal courtroom on Thursday to present arguments regarding defense motions to dismiss a government case concerning classified documents. The defense team claimed that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) sought these documents for political reasons, driven by the Biden Administration. Although Trump and his co-defendants were not required to attend the hearing before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, their lawyers indicated that they would be present.
There was high security presence around the courthouse, as Trump supporters and a few President Biden backers gathered ahead of the hearing. The focus of the court session was mainly on two defense motions to dismiss a 40-count indictment accusing the former president of illegally retaining classified government documents after leaving office. According to the indictment, Trump enlisted two employees, his personal valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira, to keep the documents out of reach from federal authorities.
This court appearance did not involve the issue of presidential immunity, which is being pressed by the defense both in the Washington election interference case against Trump and the Florida documents case. The question of presidential immunity is set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next month. In the Florida case, all three defendants have pleaded not guilty. The charges are based on a dispute between Trump and NARA over the retrieval of the documents.
The defense argued that the Presidential Records Act, which governs the handling of documents generated by a president, favors Trump. Furthermore, they claimed that the agency’s efforts to retrieve the documents were politically motivated and fueled by the Biden Administration. The defense also alleged that the referral of the matter to the Department of Justice by NARA was a “sham” and that there were no reasonable grounds for a criminal investigation.
Prosecutors countered these arguments, stating that the act does not affect the scope of the statute underlying the indictment. They argued that Trump was not authorized to possess classified records, as alleged in the indictment. The government emphasized that the charged documents were presidential, not personal, and that Trump’s claims of immunity and authority to remove records from the White House were erroneous.
The trial date of May 20, set by Judge Cannon, was to be discussed in court. However, it was anticipated that a new starting date would be proposed, with the government suggesting July 8. The defense, on the other hand, submitted alternative dates for joint and individual trials. Defense lawyers have previously advocated for a post-election trial, prompting accusations from the government of submitting “fake dates.”
This is an ongoing story, and further updates will follow. Subscribe to breaking news alerts to stay informed.