❓WHAT HAPPENED: Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate Donald J. Trump during a golf outing in Florida last year, forfeited his right to continue his opening statement during his trial after veering off topic to discuss Adolf Hitler and global conflicts.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Ryan Routh, the defendant, is representing himself in the trial presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. Secret Service agents, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, and a civilian witness also testified.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The trial began on September 11, 2025, in Fort Pierce, Florida, following the alleged assassination attempt on September 15, 2024, at Trump’s West Palm Beach country club.
💬KEY QUOTE: “I gave you one more chance and you continued to read what has no relevance for this case,” said Judge Aileen Cannon to Routh during his opening statement.
🎯IMPACT: Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges including attempted assassination of a presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and firearm violations. The proceedings are expected to continue for several weeks.
IN FULL
Ryan Routh, a 59-year-old defendant accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald J. Trump, forfeited his right to continue his opening statement during his trial in Fort Pierce, Florida, after veering bizarrely off topic. U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon warned Routh multiple times to stay relevant, ultimately stopping him after he discussed Adolf Hitler and conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.
“I gave you one more chance and you continued to read what has no relevance for this case,” Judge Cannon said, cutting off Routh’s remarks.
Prosecutors allege that Routh meticulously planned the attack, aiming a rifle at Trump as he played golf on September 15, 2024, at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before he could fire and shot at him, causing him to drop his weapon and flee. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley described the plot as “carefully crafted and deadly serious.”
During the initial stage of the trial on Thursday, five witnesses testified, including two Secret Service agents, two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, and a civilian named Tommy McGee. McGee recounted following Routh after the incident to record his license plate, unaware that Trump was the intended target. Secret Service Agent Robert Fercano testified that he was just five feet away from Routh when he spotted the rifle aimed from the bushes.
Routh, who is representing himself, asked only a few questions during cross-examinations, often referring to himself in the third person. When he asked Agent Fercano if he had been harmed, the agent replied, “I wasn’t physically harmed, but I was mentally harmed from you pointing a gun at me.”
Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges including attempted assassination of a presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and firearm violations. The proceedings are expected to continue for several weeks.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Ukraine sympathizer Ryan Rotuh, accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald J. Trump in Florida last year, will represent himself in court—but the judge has warned him not to make “any sudden movements.”
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Ryan Routh, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, and court-appointed attorneys.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Jury selection begins Monday in Fort Pierce, Florida, with the trial scheduled to start September 11.
💬KEY QUOTE: “If you make any sudden movements, marshals will take decisive and quick action to respond.” – U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon
🎯IMPACT: The trial will address charges including attempted assassination, assaulting a federal officer, and firearm violations.
IN FULL
Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald J. Trump in Florida last year, will act as his own attorney at his trial. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon approved Routh’s request in July, with court-appointed lawyers remaining as standby counsel. During a hearing on Tuesday, the court provided Routh with instructions on courtroom conduct—with Judge Cannon warning him, “If you make any sudden movements, marshals will take decisive and quick action to respond.”
Jury selection is scheduled to begin on Monday in Fort Pierce, Florida. Opening statements are set for September 11, with prosecutors expected to present their case immediately after. The trial is projected to last four weeks, though attorneys believe it could be shorter.
Prosecutors allege that nearly a year ago, Routh, then 58, pointed a rifle at Trump through shrubbery at his West Palm Beach country club while he golfed. A U.S. Secret Service agent stopped the alleged assassination attempt. Now 59, Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted assassination, assaulting a federal officer, and multiple firearm violations.
State authorities also accuse Routh of almost killing a six-year-old girl during his attempt to evade law enforcement, causing a multi-car crash that seriously injured her.
Based in Hawaii, Routh reportedly presented himself as a mercenary leader. Witnesses said he openly discussed violent plans and tried to recruit fighters for global conflicts, particularly Ukraine’s war with Russia. His prior criminal record includes weapons and stolen property offenses.
The trial will cover federal charges as well as state charges of attempted murder and terrorism.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
With the 2024 presidential election set to be decided in less than two weeks, speculation regarding the potential cabinet picks for both major party candidates is rife. One of the important roles the election victor will choose is who will serve as the United States Attorney General.
While neither former President Donald J. Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris has publicly stated who they prefer for the role, presidential transition documents and conversations among lawmakers on Capitol Hill have given some idea of who Trump is considering. Among the names being circulated are at least three sitting United States senators, a former acting Attorney General, a conservative legal expert, the former chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a U.S. District Court judge. Here they are, in no particular order:
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM!?
One name that was floated even before the 2024 election cycle kicked off in earnest is U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). While the pick would likely rankle conservatives and MAGA loyalists alike, Graham does have extensive legal experience and has been a close ally of Trump—even during the 2024 Republican primary.
Before his election to public office, Graham served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps with the U.S. Air Force—eventually becoming the military service branch’s top prosecutor in Europe. After leaving active duty, Graham worked in private practice as an attorney for several years before being elected to the South Carolina State House of Representatives and, subsequently, the U.S. Congress.
From 2019 until 2021, Graham served as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is currently its ranking member. The South Carolina Republican—known for being a bipartisan lawmaker—made waves for his unusually vocal criticism of Democrats over their treatment of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Graham would represent a wet and compromising approach to the Office of the Attorney General, representing almost no change from the public disaster that was Bill Barr. With Trump only being able to serve one more term, it would be a huge waste of time and indeed an unnecessary risk to appoint someone like Graham.
SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY.
Along with Sen. Graham, another member of the upper house of Congress said to be under consideration for Attorney General is Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). Like Graham, the senior Senator from Missouri has extensive legal experience in private and government practices.
A graduate of Yale Law School, Hawley worked as a lawyer in private practice from 2008 to 2011 before joining the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as an attorney. While at the Becket Fund, Hawley served on a legal team that won Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores—a Supreme Court decision that held privately-owned, for-profit companies were exempt from Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
In 2016, Hawley was elected as the Attorney General for the State of Missouri, where he served before defeating incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in 2018. Sen. Hawley serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has developed a reputation as an aggressive and formidable interrogator of witnesses brought before the body.
SENATOR ERIC SCHMITT.
Joining Sen. Hawley as a contender for Attorney General is the junior Senator from Missouri, Eric Schmitt. The 49-year-old lawmaker succeeded Hawley as Attorney General for Missouri before being elected to the United States Senate in 2022. Also like Hawley, Schmitt has been an outspoken critic of the Biden-Harris DOJ and its partisan lawfare campaign against President Trump and his allies.
A conservative and populist politician, Schmitt checks a lot of the right boxes for an Attorney General nominee. Additionally, the junior Senator from Missouri has joined Trump on the campaign trail as a confidant, helping with the Republican nominee’s debate preparation ahead of Trump thrashing Joe Biden on CNN in June. Biden’s debate performance was so catastrophic he subsequently quit the presidential race.
As Missouri’s Attorney General, Schmitt worked to invalidate Obamacare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he sued school districts and municipalities for overstepping their legal authority when implementing mask mandates.
FORMER ACTING AG JEFF CLARK.
One of the most interesting names being circulated is former acting U.S. Attorney General Jeff Clark. The former acting Attorney General in the final days of Trump’s first term in office, Clark has been one of the top targets of the Biden-Harris government’s lawfarecampaign against Trump and his allies.
Clark, a well-known and respected administrative lawyer, was appointed Assistant Attorney General during the Trump administration. During this time, he became concerned about potential voter fraud in the November 2020 election. He has drawn the ire of Democrats for simply authoring an unpublished legal memo on the constitutional actions Georgia state lawmakers could take to challenge the 2020 presidential election results due to allegations of voter fraud.
Two years ago, federal law enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) raided Clark’s home—though the agency has yet to publicly state why the raid was conducted. Perhaps in anticipation of Clark’s possible appointment to Attorney General, Democrats have been pursuing an effort to strip the attorney from practicing law in the District of Columbia.
A documentary drawing attention to the dubious lawfare campaign against Clark was recently released to the public. Fearless Point of Attack: The Jeff Clark Story features numerous attorneys and others defending Clark, including law professor Robert Destro, who stated, “Jeff is being persecuted, I would argue, because he gave legal advice that he thought was good faith legal advice.”
MIKE DAVIS.
Conservative legal expert Mike Davis is another name that has begun floating around those close to the Trump campaign. Davis, the founder, and president of the Article III Project (A3P), previously served as Sen. Chuck Grassley‘s (R-IA) chief counsel for judicial nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under Grassley’s chairmanship—and with the aid of Davis—the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed a historic 85 federal judicial nominees put forward by then-President Trump to lifetime appointments. Among them were two United States Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch.
In addition to his work on judicial and legal matters, Davis heads the Internet Accountability Project (IAP), a nonprofit group aimed at holding Big Tech accountable for its partisan political bias and economic distortions. Davis has been an outspoken proponent of religious liberty, and his deep ties to those in the MAGA and America First movements make him a fan favorite.
On social media, Davis has routinely pointed out the hypocrisy and unprecedented lawfare campaign pushed by Democrats through hyperbolic quips about the actions he’d take as “Acting Attorney General.”
JUDGE AILEEN CANNON.
A somewhat surprising name has also emerged from a leaked document related to Trump’s presidential transition team. The document, titled “Transition Planning: Legal Principals,” lists U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon as a possible choice for Attorney General.
Cannon, nominated by Trump as a federal judge in 2020, gained attention after dismissing a case involving 40 criminal counts against the former president regarding his handling of classified documents post-presidency. Cannon found many issues with the lawfare prosecution, ultimately ruling that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional. Smith was neither appointed by the president nor confirmed by Congress.
The U.S. District Court judge appears second on the attorney general list, following former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Jay Clayton.
FORMER SEC CHAIRMAN JAY CLAYTON.
Jay Clayton, the former chairman of the SEC, is considered a top contender for Attorney General. With extensive experience in several fields of law as a partner with Sullivan & Cromwell, Clayton has an impressive resume—especially regarding legal representation in the U.S. financial sector.
Clayton was one of the first appointments announced by then-President-elect Donald Trump, being tapped for the role of SEC chairman on January 4, 2017. Interestingly, Clayton’s nomination was endorsed by future Trump antagonist, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. It was Vance’s office that colluded with Mark Pomerantz in its investigation of Trump regarding an alleged 2016 campaign finance violation and business record fraud.
The dubious case would later be prosecuted by Vance’s successor, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and is currently pending appeal. Some have speculated that Pomerantz pushed Bragg into the prosecution despite its legally questionable grounding.
Jack Montgomery contributed to this report.
show less
With the 2024 presidential election set to be decided in less than two weeks, speculation regarding the potential cabinet picks for both major party candidates is rife. One of the important roles the election victor will choose is who will serve as the United States Attorney General.
show more
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed Jack Smith‘s prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. Cannon ruled that Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional.
In Cannon’s ruling, she determines that the naming of Smith violates the Appropriations and Appointments clauses.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued in his concurring opinion in Trump v. United States that the appointment likely violated the Constitution.
“In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States,” Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. He continued: “But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”
“By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” the justice wrote, adding: ” If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”
READ:
BIG NEWS – Judge Cannon dismisses classified docs case —> says Jack Smith appointment is unconstitutional pic.twitter.com/kA4fCaHTPp
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed Jack Smith's prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. Cannon ruled that Smith's appointment as special counsel by Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional.
show more
Former President Donald J. Trump‘s legal team is asking U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to rule on whether Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith‘s appointment is constitutional. The attorneys cite concerns U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised in his concurring opinion on presidential immunity.
“Highlighting grave separation-of-powers concerns, Justice Thomas suggested that 28 U.S.C. §§ 515 and 533 do not establish ‘by Law’ Jack Smith’s position under the Appointments Clause,” the filing submitted on Friday reads. Trump‘s attorneys continue: “By extension, these statutes are not “other law” under the relevant appropriation, and these ‘essential questions’ should be addressed ‘before proceeding.'”
The National Pulse reported Monday, following the high court’s ruling that Trump is protected from prosecution for official acts, that Justice Thomas also raised whether Jack Smith‘s appointment by Joe Biden’s DOJ was lawful.
THOMAS QUESTIONS SMITH.
“In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States,” Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. He continued: “But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”
“By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” the justice noted, adding: “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has raised concerns similar to Thomas’s in the past while also noting that the appointment of a private citizen to the Office of Special Counsel without Senate confirmation likely violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Jack Smith did not hold a Senate-confirmed position prior to his appointment by Garland.
show less
Former President Donald J. Trump's legal team is asking U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to rule on whether Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith's appointment is constitutional. The attorneys cite concerns U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised in his concurring opinion on presidential immunity.
show more
Notes and audio recordings belonging to an attorney representing former President Donald J. Trump regarding the retention of potentially classified documents show the former President wanted full transparency and cooperation with the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ). Despite Trump’s efforts to comply with the department’s requests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided the former President’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022—just months after the recordings were made.
According to notes from a May 2022 meeting, Trump told his attorney, Evan Corcoran, “I’ve got nothing to hide. If they ask, I want you to show them.” Trump also directed Corcoran to review the documents in his possession and hand over any classified materials to the DOJ. Additionally, the former President insisted his attorneys grant the DOJ access to any additional documents they wished to review.
‘IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, JUST ASK.’
Following Corcoran’s review of the boxes of White House materials that Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago, a half-inch stack of documents determined to be still classified were placed in an envelope and bound with tape. Trump’s attorneys then contacted the DOJ to notify and arrange the return of the materials.
The Biden government dispatched Jay Bratt, the then deputy chief of the DOJ‘s National Security Division, to retrieve the documents. Upon his arrival at Trump‘s Palm Beach, Florida, residence, the former President surrendered the materials to Bratt. The former President was cordial, telling the DOJ officials, “I’m glad you’re here. I appreciate what you’re doing. If you need anything at all, just ask Evan.”
According to Corcoran’s notes, the former President—against his attorney’s advice—even went so far as to show Bratt and FBI agents present the storage vault where the documents had been kept.
FBI TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE.
Rather than acknowledging Trump‘s cooperation, however, DOJ special prosecutor Jack Smith alleges the notes show that the former President intended to deceive the Biden government. Smith contends that the additional documents found during the FBI raid—which occurred two months after Trump met with Bratt—were also classified, suggesting the former President intended to obstruct justice.
However, the actual status of the documents the FBI seized during their raid on Mar-a-Lago is unclear, as Smith has now acknowledged that agents placed the classified cover sheets on the stacks of papers themselves prior to photographing them. Former President Trump‘s attorneys are now asking federal judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the case due to FBI tampering with evidence and the withholding of the exculpatory notes from another federal judge who authorized the raid.
show less
Notes and audio recordings belonging to an attorney representing former President Donald J. Trump regarding the retention of potentially classified documents show the former President wanted full transparency and cooperation with the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ). Despite Trump's efforts to comply with the department's requests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided the former President's Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022—just months after the recordings were made.
show more
Judge Aileen Cannon has denied Special Prosecutor Jack Smith‘s proposed gag order against former President Donald Trump, citing Smith‘s failure to adhere to “basic requirements.” Judge Cannon also wrote that Smith may face sanctions should he refuse to comply with certain requirements moving forward.
“Upon review of the Motion 581 [581-1], Defendant Trump’s procedural opposition 583, and the attached email correspondence between counsel [583-1], the Court finds the Special Counsel’s pro forma ‘conferral’ to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy,” Cannon wrote. “It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise,” Cannon continued.
“Because the filing of the Special Counsel’s motion did not adhere to these basic requirements, it is due to be denied without prejudice,” she wrote.
Judge Cannon further declared that any future non-emergency motion “shall not be filed absent meaningful, timely, and professional conferral.” She laid out specific requirements for all certificates of conferral moving forward and declared that “[f]ailure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions.”
Judge Cannon has become increasingly frustrated with Smith throughout his prosecution of Trump for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. Cannon recently blasted Smith for inconsistencies on his position regarding the sealing of evidence.
BREAKING: Judge Cannon, as expected, denies Jack Smith's proposed gag order, warns sanctions could be next if he keeps violating the rules. pic.twitter.com/T2Yxb1zvm6
Judge Aileen Cannon has denied Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's proposed gag order against former President Donald Trump, citing Smith's failure to adhere to "basic requirements." Judge Cannon also wrote that Smith may face sanctions should he refuse to comply with certain requirements moving forward.
show more
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, presiding over the Florida-based federal classified documents prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump, blasted Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith‘s inconsistent positions on the need to seal evidence in the case. The federal judge’s criticism comes as Smith’s office stated they had no objection to unsealing docket entries related to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, yet continued to argue elsewhere for the need to keep such details confidential.
“In two separate filings related to sealing, the special counsel stated, without qualification, that he had no objection to full unsealing of previously sealed docket entries related to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct,” Judge Cannon wrote in an order issued on Sunday. She added: “In light of that repeated representation, and in the absence of any defense objection, the court unsealed those materials consistent with the general presumption in favor of public access.”
The unsealed materials contained details of grand jurytestimony that had previously not been made public. Cannon noted that the special counsel‘s acquiescence to making the material public contradicted assertions made in other filings that the documents should remain sealed. The judge demanded an explanation from Smith and his legal team.
“In response to those inquiries, counsel explained that the special counsel took the position on unsealing in order to publicly and transparently refute defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct raised in pretrial motions,” her order unsealing the documents read. Addressing Smith directly, Cannon wrote: “The sealing and redaction rules should be applied consistently and fairly upon a sufficient factual and legal showing. And parties should not make requests that undermine any prior representations or positions except upon full disclosure to the court and appropriate briefing.”
show less
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, presiding over the Florida-based federal classified documents prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump, blasted Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith's inconsistent positions on the need to seal evidence in the case. The federal judge's criticism comes as Smith's office stated they had no objection to unsealing docket entries related to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, yet continued to argue elsewhere for the need to keep such details confidential.
show more
Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been managing the Joe Biden Justice Department’s case alleging former President Donald Trump mishandled classified documents, is being attacked by Democrats for postponing a trial date indefinitely. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on federal courts and oversight subcommittee, accuses Cannon of “deliberately slow-walking the case.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) says Cannon is “managing this case in a way that is making it highly unlikely that it will be resolved in a timely fashion” – that is, before the presidential election in November, in which Trump is currently the favorite.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) complains he is unsure “whether this judge understands the magnitude or the legal import of this trial.”
Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst not typically sympathetic to Trump, has suggested Biden’s special prosecutor, Jack Smith, appears to be rushing to convict Trump before November. “Just look at Jack Smith’s conduct in this case. The motivating principle behind every procedural request he’s made has been speed, has been getting this trial in before the election,” she observed in December.
However, Smith and his team bear much of the responsibility for the delays. Days before Cannon vacated a May 20 trial date, prosecutors admitted they may have tampered with evidence seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. A month prior, she had to upbraid the prosecution for failing to address arguments raised by the defense multiple times.
When she indefinitely postponed the trial, she cited these “myriad and interconnected” outstanding issues.
show less
Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been managing the Joe Biden Justice Department's case alleging former President Donald Trump mishandled classified documents, is being attacked by Democrats for postponing a trial date indefinitely. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on federal courts and oversight subcommittee, accuses Cannon of “deliberately slow-walking the case.”
show more
Editor’s Notes
Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.
Former President Donald J. Trump is asking U.S. District Court Judge AileenCannon to dismiss charges brought by Biden Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith alleging he illegally retained classified documents. In an unsealed motion filed late Thursday, the former President argued that Smith has engaged in a “selective and vindictive prosecution.”
“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,” the motion states, before adding: “The exception is President Trump.”
The filing alleges the special counsel‘s investigation and indictment of former President Trump is politically motivated and meant to sideline Democrat incumbent JoeBiden‘s presidential election opponent. “The basis is his politics and status as President Biden’s chief political rival,” Trump’s attorneys argue in the motion. They continue: “Thus, this case reflects the type of selective and vindictive prosecution that cannot be tolerated.”
Bolstering their argument, the former President‘s defense team notes that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced no repercussions for retaining and destroying sensitive documents that she stored on a private server. “Hillary Clinton and her colleagues deleted 31,830 emails and destroyed data on numerous electronic devices, including after a congressional protective order,” note Trump’s attorneys.
The motion also details the unprosecuted mishandling of classified documents by James Comey, the former director of the FBI. “Comey hid from the FBI that he had used a private scanner and his personal email account to transmit at least two classified documents to his personal attorney,” the motion reads. Trump’s attorneys go on to note that former Vice President Mike Pence, former Clinton government national security adviser Sandy Berger, and even Joe Biden avoided prosecution for similar crimes of which Trump is accused.
BREAKING.🚨
President Trump has filed a motion for dismissal in the classified documents case based on "selective and vindictive prosecution."
"With one exception there is NO RECORD of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling… pic.twitter.com/Ga9IQJ2cQl
Former President Donald J. Trump is asking U.S. District Court Judge AileenCannon to dismiss charges brought by Biden Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith alleging he illegally retained classified documents. In an unsealed motion filed late Thursday, the former President argued that Smith has engaged in a "selective and vindictive prosecution."
show more
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
