On Thursday attorney’s for former President Trump filed a motion to dismiss the court case involving classified documents in Florida on the basis of “selective and vindictive prosecution.”
Originally, the legal team for Trump thought the case against him should be dismissed based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), but Judge Aileen Cannon rejected the motion back in April. In a new motion brought forward, attorneys for the former president cite Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report claiming, “with one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration.”
“President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits that the Indictment must be dismissed on the basis of the Office’s selective and vindictive prosecution,” the motion stated. “The exception is President Trump. The basis is his politics and status as President Biden’s chief political rival. Thus, this case reflects the type of selective and vindictive prosecution that cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, further discovery and a hearing are necessary, and the Superseding Indictment must be dismissed.”
The charge against the former president was the mishandling of over 300 classified documents to which Special Counsel Jack Smith decided to pursue charges and subsequent indictment.
Trump was actually charged with 31 counts stemming from violations of the Espionage Act such as “conspiracy to obstruct justice”; “withholding a document or record”; “corruptly concealing a document or record”; “concealing a document in a deferral investigation”; “scheme to conceal”; and “false statements and representations.”
The Department of Justice of course believes the prosecution is not political and will be opposing Trump’s motion to dismiss.
“Trump contends … that he has been subject to selective and vindictive prosecution. But he has not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar battery of criminal conduct and not been prosecuted as a result,” Special Counsel Jack Smith wrote. “He has likewise failed to provide any evidence that his indictment was brought solely to retaliate against him for exercising his legal rights, rather than because he flagrantly and repeatedly broke the law.”