Earlier today in Florida, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon carefully listened to lengthy oral arguments about the initial charges brought against President Donald Trump in the classified documents case.
While listening to a debate on terminology and odd interpretation of application to the statute of the Espionage Act, a case study in Lawfare as presented, Judge Cannon decided in a later ruling to defer the nuances of legislative interpretation until later in the trial pleadings. Her 2-page Ruling is here.
While many voices say this initial motion to dismiss failed, there are several indications the ruling was more about targeting the issue of statutory definitions to latter phases in the pretrial legal process. Essentially, allowing the DOJ to try and square the circles that are seemingly unsquarable.
Cannon is avoiding the trap of removal from the case by carefully and meticulously following a very routing process to allow the full sunlight of judicial consideration to apply at the moment when the interpretation has the greatest importance. Despite ruling against dismissal, this is not a loss for the Trump legal team, as the issues behind the dismissal motion have not been rectified. These issues will surface again at more critical moments.
If the Lawfare case is going to be dismissed in whole, as opposed to part by part, Julie Kelly was present in the court and also noticed that Judge Cannon appears to be positioning herself to dismiss the case on “selective prosecution” grounds. See this Great Thread HERE.
Summary. 
While Cannon did not accept the Trump motion to dismiss today, the elements of today’s motion will face strong scrutiny as the case progresses. Additionally, if the case is to be dismissed, the technical definitions could be moot if the judge uses another more transparently obvious context, “selective prosecution,” to dismiss the case.
