Trump loses bids to dismiss classified docs, Georgia election cases on the same day

Donald
Trump
on
Thursday
afternoon
lost
two
separate
attempts
to
dismiss

criminal
charges
against
him
in
his

Florida
and

Georgia
cases.

In
Florida
federal
court,
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
rejected
Trump’s
bid
to
drop
charges
against
him
related
to
his
alleged
mishandling
of
hundreds
of
classified
documents
after
he
left
the
White
House.

In
a
brief
order,
Cannon
wrote
that
Trump’s
argument,
which
hinged
on
his
interpretation
of
the
Presidential
Records
Act,
was
an
insufficient
basis
for
dismissal.

That
ruling
came
about
two
hours
after
Fulton
County
Superior
Court
Judge
Scott
McAfee
denied
Trump’s
attempt
to
dismiss
his
Georgia
election
interference
case
on
the
grounds
that
it
violated
his
free
speech
rights.

The
twin
losses
came
one
day
after
New
York
Supreme
Court
Judge
Juan
Merchan
denied
a
request
by
Trump
to
delay
his
upcoming
criminal
hush
money
trial.

That
case
is
set
to
begin
jury
selection
in
less
than
two
weeks.
It
is
the
first
of
Trump’s
four
criminal
cases
to
go
to
trial.

The
presumptive
Republican
presidential
nominee
has
aggressively
sought
to
dismiss
all
of
his
criminal
trials,
or
at
least
to
push
them
past
the
November
election.
In
the
hush
money
case
alone,
he
has
made
eight
attempts
to
delay
the
trial.

Thursday’s
developments
were
not
a
total
win
for
Trump’s
prosecutors,
however.

Cannon’s
ruling
also
pushed
back
on
special
counsel
Jack
Smith,
who
criticized
the
judge’s
guidelines
earlier
this
week
for
the
proposed
jury
instructions.

Smith
said
that
Cannon’s
guidelines,
which
asked
the
parties
to
write
jury
instructions
about
how
to
interpret
the
Presidential
Records
Act,
were
based
on
a
false
legal
premise
that
wrongly
gave
credence
to
Trump’s
claims.

Smith
asked
Cannon
to
decide
quickly
if
she
will
adopt
those
jury
instructions,
so
that
he
has
time
to
appeal
her
decision.

Cannon
on
Thursday
slammed
that
demand
as “unprecedented
and
unjust.”

The
judge
wrote
that
her
order
about
the
jury
instructions “should
not
be
misconstrued”
as
the
final
word
on
any
essential
piece
of
the
case.

Rather,
she
wrote,
it
was “a
genuine
attempt,
in
the
context
of
the
upcoming
trial,
to
better
understand
the
parties’
competing
positions”
in
a
complex
case.

But
Cannon
added
that
Smith
is
nonetheless
free
to
make
use
of “whatever
appellate
options
it
sees
fit
to
invoke,
as
permitted
by
law.”

This
is
breaking
news.
Please
check
back
for
updates.