The judge overseeing former President Trump’s classified documents case asked the question Republicans have been wanting to know since the day his Mar-a-Lago property was raided by the FBI.
Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday pointed out how no other former or current president has been charged with mishandling classified documents— unlike Trump.
During a hearing to consider several motions Trump filed to dismiss the case, NBC News noted that at times, Cannon “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,” the prosecutor of the special counsel’s office, Jay Bratt said.
The outlet pointed out that Republicans have called the charges against Trump a “double standard.”
[Trump attorney Tom] Blanche argued that “presidents since George Washington have taken materials out of the White House” at “their own discretion,” but Cannon seemed skeptical of his arguments involving the Records Act.
The sides also argued the motion that the main statute used against Trump can’t be used against him. Trump's attorney Emil Bove told the judge that “the government cannot make decisions based on selective criteria and political bias” and that the indictment should be thrown out. He pointed to other instances in which presidents were found to have retained classified information and mentioned special counsel Robert Hur's decision not to charge President Joe Biden for classified material he had in his possession dating from his time in the Senate.
In his report explaining why he declined to charge Biden, Hur said that there were “clear” distinctions between the two cases and that unlike “the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.”
According to CNN, Cannon reportedly said that it would be an “extraordinary step” to dismiss Trump’s case based solely on his argument that the law behind his indictment is “unconstitutionally vague.”