- Trump suffers third setback in little more than 24 hours in three separate cases
- His lawyers had argued he was entitled to take home ‘personal’ documents
- But the judge overseeing Florida documents case rejected argument Thursday
A federal judge on Thursday refused to throw out the classified documents case against Donald Trump, rejecting his argument that former presidents were allowed to keep files after leaving the White House.
It is the latest legal blow to Trump who is due to appear in court in 11 days time for the start of a business fraud trial in New York.
His lawyers have repeatedly sought to delay the four cases against him or have the prosecutions dismissed entirely.
In the Florida documents case, they used the 1978 Presidential Records Act to argue that their client had the power to designate files as personal and take them with him when he left office.
Trump is charged with wilfully retaining documents of national security importance and failing to hand them over. He denies all the charges.
Former President Donald Trump lost his effort to have the Florida documents case thrown out
The FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and recovered hundreds of government files. This image, of boxes in a bathroom, was included in the indictment against him
Special Counsel Jack Smith said the documents related to intelligence and military issues, including the U.S. nuclear program, and were not personal.
In a three-page order, Judge Aileen Cannon sided with prosecutors, saying the indictment made ‘no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense.’
It is the latest legal loss for Trump. In the 24 hours before the ruling in Florida, he lost two other efforts to delay cases in Georgia and in New York.
Trump claims all four criminal cases against him are politically motivated. And he still has several other challenges to the documents case pending.
That trial is slated to begin on May 20, but lawyers on both sides admit that it will be delayed.
Earlier in the day the judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case rejected his argument that prosecutors were trying to criminalise speech protected by First Amendment rights.
The case accuses Trump and 14 allies of taking part in a conspiracy to overurn his election defeat in the state.
And his lawyers claimed that some of the evidence against them was based on political speeches, which were protected by the First Amendment.
The documents were found during an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2022
In a three-page order, Judge Aileen Cannon sided with prosecutors
A day earlier in New Yoek, Judge Juan M. Merchan gave short shrift to Trump lawyers arguing for a trial delay. He also questioned their motives in bringing a motion so late
In his ruling, Judge Scott McAfee cites allowable restrictions on speech and association during instances such as alleged criminal activity.
‘Like political speech, the right of association is not immune from restriction — particularly where the “state indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process” — and thus laws “burden[ing] the associational rights of political parties and their members” may be valid,’ he wrote.
And on Wednesday, Trump lost a request to delay his business fraud trial until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not former presidents have immunity.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan said the motion had come too late, ruling that Trump’s lawyers had plenty of time to have lodged the request before a deadline expired.
Instead, he said the March 7 filing ‘raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion.’