<div class="gjw_content"><div class="max-lg:post-main mx-auto max-w-[900px] space-y-4 pb-6"> <p>In a hearing on Tuesday, Judge Aileen Cannon expressed concerns about the language used in the indictment against former President Donald Trump and his associates. The judge questioned the use of the term “knowingly, corruptly” and said there was a “potpourri” of criticisms about the indictment. The defense has argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution, as well as insufficient pleading. The prosecution maintains that the charges are valid and that any issues with the indictment can be addressed at trial.</p> <p>By yourNEWS Media Newsroom</p> <p>In a recent development in the case against former President Donald Trump and his associates, Judge Aileen Cannon expressed concerns about the language used in the indictment, stating that it could be confusing for jurors. The defendants have argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution, as well as insufficient pleading.</p> <p>The latest developments in the case are as follows:</p> <ul> <li>Judge Cannon pointed out that the indictment’s use of the term “knowingly, corruptly” could be confusing for jurors. The prosecution argued that “knowingly” modifies “corruptly,” but the judge stated that there was a “potpourri” of criticisms about the indictment.</li> <li>Defense attorney Woodward argued that count 39 of the indictment, which charges Mr. Nauta with “false statements and representations,” was due to the FBI’s phrasing during a voluntary interview. Mr. Nauta had stated that he did not know where allegedly missing boxes were or how boxes given to NARA had been moved to Pine Hall.</li> <li>The prosecution argued that Mr. Nauta did not need to know what was in the boxes he was moving in order to be charged with “corruptly concealing a document or record” (count 35) and “scheme to conceal” (count 37). The defense argued that these counts were insufficient and did not let the defendant know what crimes he was being charged with.</li> <li>Judge Cannon seemed annoyed with the prosecution’s lack of direct answers to her questions, but ultimately accepted their point that counts 34 through 37 address the same underlying conduct but are separate counts because they cite different criminal statutes.</li> <li>The defense also argued that count 33, which charges all three defendants with “conspiracy to obstruct justice,” should be dismissed because the attorney who provided the FBI with a false statement of certification did not do so knowingly. The defense also argued that counts 34 and 36 should be dismissed for duplicity.</li> </ul> <p>The case is ongoing, and it remains to be seen whether the defendants’ arguments for dismissal will be successful.</p> </div> <div id="post_content" class="post_content max-lg:post-main !text-lg"> <div class="flex justify-center"></div> </div></div>
