Lawyers for former President Donald Trump tested an argument in his Florida documents case Thursday, and nine bills head to DeSantis' desk for his approval
Federal Judge denies Trump's dismissal effort in documents case
A federal judge on Thursday denied an effort to dismiss the classified documents prosecution of Donald Trump after his lawyers argued for hours that the case trampled on the former president's rights.
The ruling, which came down Thursday evening after a hearing earlier that same day, denied Trump's motion without prejudice, "to be raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions," the order says.
"Although the motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the court ultimately determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged, along with at least some disputed factual issues as raised in the motion," Cannon says in her ruling.
As Trump looked on in the courtroom, his attorneys pressed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to throw out the case, arguing he was legally entitled to keep the sensitive records he is charged with illegally retaining after he left the White House.
Trump's lawyers say the Presidential Records Act gave him the authority to designate as personal property the records he took with him to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Prosecutors say those included top-secret information and documents related to nuclear programs and the military capabilities of the U.S. and foreign adversaries.
Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, didn't immediately rule, but made it clear through her questions that she was skeptical of the defense effort to scuttle one of four criminal cases against the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Cannon suggested she seemed inclined to have the disputed issues be decided by a jury.
A prosecutor told Cannon that there are "all sorts of reasons" that Trump's argument is wrong. Prosecutors said the files Trump is charged with possessing are presidential records, not personal ones, and that the statute does not apply to classified and top-secret documents, like those kept at Mar-a-Lago.
"The documents charged in the indictment are not personal records. They are not," said David Harbach, a member of special counsel Jack Smith's team. "They are nowhere close to it under the definition of the Presidential Records Act."
Trump sat at the defense table at the federal court in Fort Pierce with his hands clasped, listening intently to the arguments. Smith, who brought the case, was also in the courtroom, but there was no visible interaction between the two men.
The hearing is the second this month in the case in Florida. Cannon heard arguments on March 1 on when to schedule a trial date, but has yet to announce one and gave no indication Thursday on when she might do so. Prosecutors have pressed the judge to set a date for this summer, while Trump's lawyers are seeking to put it off until after the election.
Trump's lawyers also argued that the law that underpins the bulk of the charges is too vaguely worded to enforce against a former president. At issue is a law that makes it a crime for an unauthorized person to willfully retain national defense information. That charge forms the basis of 32 of the 40 felony counts against Trump in the case.
Defense lawyer Emil Bove said ambiguity in the statute permits what he called "selective" enforcement by the Justice Department, leading to Trump being charged but enabling others to avoid prosecution. Bove said that includes President Joe Biden, the recent subject of a harshly critical report by special counsel Robert Hur on the president's handling of classified information.
"The court's obligation is to strike the statute and say 'Congress, get it right,'" Bove told Cannon.
Major legislation heads to DeSantis for signing
This week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is receiving nine bills from the Legislature.
They include the two health initiatives pushed by Senate President Kathleen Passidomo.
Senate Bill 7016 and Senate Bill 7018 both address health care in Florida.
The Live Healthy bill hopes to recruit and retain more medical staff in Florida. To do that, lawmakers are channeling millions into state medical schools. The measure would increase residency slots at universities and provide greater loan repayment options to health care professionals.
“This is a game changer,” said Stuart Republican Gayle Harrell, a bill sponsor.
To the dismay of Democrats, the Live Healthy bill does not expand Medicaid. Instead, it creates a cost-free health care screening program. It also creates a grant program that emphasizes no- and low-cost treatment for the uninsured, giving special considerations to rural Florida. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly 11% of Floridians are uninsured.
“We should not let the perfect get in the way of the good,” said St. Petersburg Democratic State Sen. Darryl Rouson.
The 232-page proposal contains a slew of other provisions. It looks to divert non-emergency patients away from ERs and, alternatively, direct them to clinics and urgent care establishments. Further, it urges medical workers to volunteer at need-based clinics, broadens need-based clinic eligibility and establishes a “Health Care Innovation Council” to search for new medical strategies.
The push to bolster Florida’s medical ranks, meanwhile, comes as the state experiences notable growth. Speaking to reporters, Passidomo in December estimated more than 1,000 people are moving to Florida a day. To accommodate growth, the plan also reduces barriers for foreign-trained doctors, among others, to practice in Florida.
“In Florida today, we do not have enough health care personnel to take care of the Floridians that are living here,” Passidomo said.
Also on the governor’s desk are House Bill 1365, which addresses unauthorized public camping and public sleeping, and House Bill 1451, which will ban governments from accepting identification for those not in the country legally.
The governor has until March 27 to act on these bills. He can sign them, veto them, or let them become law without his signature.
Residents divided over Maitland Library referendum
Early voting is underway and one referendum on the ballot for Maitland residents is sparking lots of conversation.
It has to do with the library and whether voters will approve $14 million in public bond financing to build a new one.
For more than 115 years, Mayor John Lowndes said the Maitland Public Library has been a place for generations to learn and grow.
“It’s got a lot of history in it, it’s been here since 1907,” said Lowndes. “Plenty of generations of people have come through and walked through these stacks, so it’s built up a lot of Maitland’s identity through the years.”
But now the future of the building is in the hands of voters who will decide if the library should grow into a proposed two story, 20,000 square foot structure near the perimeter of Quinn Strong Park. Lowndes explained that, while beloved, the current building needs a lot of work.
“The building is limited, and it is not up to a lot of the codes that we would like it to be,” he said. “It is cramped — there’s too much activity for too little space. At this point and the residents of Maitland could probably use a larger facility, a 21st century facility that is up to date with all the technology that we use today.”
While many voters are in support of the move, others have raised concerns, especially over the $18.7 million price tag for the project. It is an estimate Lowndes says was given by the architectural firm. While the city already has $5 million set aside, the rest would come from taxpayers.
That is a concern for some residents, who shared that on fixed incomes they can’t afford more taxes. Spectrum News asked Lowndes if other options were explored, like joining the Orange County Library System, but he said residents actually save money with their library by avoiding the Orange County millage rate.
“That service is not free. It’s something the taxpayers pay for, and I would argue that it is a vital service to the city of Maitland,” he said. “I would hope that people would agree with that and agree that their tax money is being well spent towards that end.”
Others questioned just how vital it actually is, asking how much the current library is actually used, and if a new one is necessary.
According to Maitland’s library staff, last fiscal year, more than 100,000 items were checked out by nearly 9,000 resident library card holders, and 1,400 reciprocal borrowers. That’s nearly double the number of checked out items compared to the neighboring Altamonte Springs library, where more than 16,000 library card holders took home just over 48,000 items.
“In our view, this is an asset that is worth the money that we would put into it and we think it would be a great public asset to have,” said Lowndes.
Lowndes said that he understands people have differing views on the project, and hopes everyone casts a ballot for a Maitland they’d want to live in.
“That’s the thing. People really need to make a reasoned decision about the future here and I think if you sit down and you look at the uses and you look at the numbers, this makes the most sense for us,” he said. “If people decide this is not the way they’d like to do it, we really will just have to live within the current library that we have.”
Lowndes said there aren't any plans right now for the current library if the new library gets approved, so the city would need to find a new public purpose for it.
Residents have until March 19 to cast their ballots in the Florida Presidential Preference Primary.