In a recent development, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed former President Trump's motion to dismiss charges of retaining classified documents on the grounds of "unconstitutional vagueness." The judge has not yet ruled on the second motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

Defense attorney Todd Blanche argued that the PRA grants the president the authority to retain documents he deems fit, including taking them out of the White House. Blanche stated that previous presidents have done the same, and nothing in the PRA prohibits a president from deciding which documents are personal versus presidential.

Team Trump also put forth the argument that the challenge against the former president's decision to move the boxes containing documents only arose because he was Donald Trump. They emphasized that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) had never before contested a president's determination of personal versus presidential documents.

Judge Cannon acknowledged the potential validity of these arguments but stated that they might have more weight during the trial rather than in a pretrial dismissal. She further pointed out that the defense's interpretation of the PRA could significantly undermine its purpose.

Blanche suggested that it would be up to Congress to modify the law if changes were necessary regarding the determination of personal versus presidential documents. He also highlighted the unprecedented nature of NARA's decision to make a criminal referral instead of resolving the issue through negotiation, as had been done in the past.

The court discussed the case in relation to former President Clinton, noting his actions of hiding tapes in his socks after his presidency. Blanche stated that NARA did not pursue an investigation into those tapes, raising questions about the inconsistent approach in referring President Trump's case to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for potential criminal prosecution.

DOJ prosecutor David Harbach emphasized that the seized documents at Mar-a-Lago were not personal but rather inferred to be presidential, supporting the charges against Trump. Harbach also emphasized the independence of Special Counsel Smith's team, asserting that they are not controlled by the Biden Administration.

The judge indicated that the seizure of a president's records was seen as an extraordinary act, emphasizing the significance of the case. While Judge Cannon dismissed the motion to dismiss charges, she acknowledged that the arguments made by the defense would still have a chance to be presented during trial.

As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of this case will have significant implications for the interpretation of the PRA and its application to future presidents. The defense's contention that the PRA allows for a broad scope of authority in classifying presidential records as personal could potentially change the landscape of presidential records management.