Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 328 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2024 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 23-80101-CR
CANNON/REINHART
vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA, and
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S NOTICE OF

PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND HEARING REQUESTS

President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this response to the Court’s February 20,

2024 Order in order to (1) provide public notice of pretrial motions that President Trump is

submitting to the Court this evening; and (2) set forth President Trump’s “position on the need for

a hearing on the motion (and if a hearing is requested, providing additional specifics on

recommended scope/format/sequencing).” ECF No. 320.

I. Public Notice Of President Trump’s Pretrial Motions

In connection with the Court’s February 22, 2024 deadline, President Trump is filing the

following pretrial motions in the manner indicated:

 Motion to dismiss Counts 1 through 32 based on presidential immunity (via ECF);

 Motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment based on selective and vindictive

prosecution (via email to the Court);

 Motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment, and in the alternative to suppress the “15
Boxes,” based on prosecutorial misconduct resulting in due process violations,
impermissible pre-indictment delay, and grand jury abuses (via email to the Court);

 Motion to dismiss Counts 1 through 32 based on the vagueness doctrine and, in addition,
to dismiss Count 19 on the basis that President Trump possessed a valid security clearance
at the time alleged in the Superseding Indictment (via ECF);

-1-
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 328 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2024 Page 2 of 7

 Motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment because the Special Counsel’s appointment
and operations violate the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause of the
Constitution (via ECF);

 Motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment pursuant to the Presidential Records Act
(“PRA”) (via ECF); and

 Motion to (a) suppress evidence seized during the raid at Mar-a-Lago and obtained in
violation of President Trump’s attorney-client privilege, and (b) dismiss the Superseding
Indictment based on prejudice from this privilege violation (via email to the Court).

II. Requests For Pretrial Disclosures And Evidentiary Hearings

As discussed in more detail in each motion, President Trump seeks discovery and pretrial

hearings on factual disputes concerning the issues set forth below, and prioritizes the disclosures

and hearings in the order listed. However, President Trump’s top priority for pretrial motion

practice is resolution of the Defendants’ pending motions for an order regarding the scope of the

prosecution team and to compel discovery. Addressing the dispute regarding the scope of the

prosecution team is necessary for several reasons, including that the Court’s ruling will set the

parameters for discovery that is necessary in connection with other hearings as well as long-ago-

promised—but as-of-yet unproduced—Jencks Act and Giglio disclosures. Moreover, as noted

previously, the Court’s rulings on the motions to compel will also likely require supplementation

of the Defendants’ other pretrial motions and further support the hearing requests set forth below. 1

1. Presidential immunity: To the extent the Special Counsel’s Office disputes that

President Trump’s decision to classify records as personal under the PRA while he was still in

office was an “official act,” factfinding in the form of document disclosures and limited witness

testimony will be necessary. See Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 29-30 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“The

1
As indicated in today’s public filings, President Trump reserves the right to supplement the motions
described herein and file any other motions based on discovery provided as a result of the motions to
compel. See ECF No. 314.
-2-
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 328 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2024 Page 3 of 7

Supreme Court has recognized that discovery tailored specifically to the question of immunity may

be merited when there is a need to develop facts or resolve factual disputes to facilitate deciding a

threshold question of immunity.”) (cleaned up).

2. Selective and vindictive prosecution: The Defendants’ motions to compel have

already established a basis for discovery and a hearing on selective and vindictive prosecution, and

this evening’s motion provides additional details to satisfy the “‘some’” evidence standard. United

States v. Williams, 684 F. App’x 767, 777 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Armstrong,

517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)). The scope of the disclosures and hearing that are necessary is governed

by Armstrong. The Office must produce “from its own files documents which might corroborate

or refute the defendant’s claim.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468. The term “own files” must be

interpreted to include the files of the entire prosecution team, and the required discovery

necessarily includes the evidence of bias and political animus sought in Part II.E of the Discussion

Section of the opening brief supporting the Defendants’ motions to compel. See ECF No. 262 at

43-52.

3. Prosecutorial misconduct: In connection with President Trump’s motion relating to

prosecutorial misconduct, discovery and hearings are necessary on three issues:

a. the extent of investigative coordination and underlying motivations behind

collusion between the Biden Administration, NARA, DOJ, the FBI, and the Special Counsel’s

Office, e.g., United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 6 (1970) (noting “extensive evidentiary hearing”

on suppression motion);

b. “[w]hether the government acted with the intent to gain a tactical

advantage” in connection with pre-indictment delay, United States v. Horton, 270 F. App’x 783,

-2-
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 328 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2024 Page 4 of 7

785 (11th Cir. 2008) (referencing “hearing on [defendant’s] motion to dismiss” based on pre-

indictment delay where “magistrate judge heard all of the evidence”); and

c. grand jury abuses concerning the timing of the conclusion by the Special

Counsel’s Office that venue did not lie in the District of Columbia, the pretextual grand jury

subpoena the Office issued to NARA in 2023, and the purpose of and discussions at the May 4,

2023 meeting between the Special Counsel’s Office, NARA, and the FBI, see, e.g., ECF No. 262

at 36-38.

4. Count 19: As discussed in President Trump’s motion to dismiss Count 19, and in

the Defendants’ motions to compel, discovery and a hearing is necessary to resolve factual disputes

regarding the handling of President Trump’s “Q” clearance, the Energy Department’s post-

Indictment decision to try to retroactively terminate President Trump’s “Q” clearance, and the

Energy Department’s treatment of other Presidents’ “Q” clearances. See ECF No. 262 at 38-42;

ECF No. at 24-25.

5. Motion to suppress and to dismiss: Regarding the motion relating to the

unconstitutional Mar-a-Lago raid and violations of President Trump’s privilege, discovery and

hearings are necessary on three issues:

a. a Franks hearing regarding misleading omissions in the warrant application

and the level of culpable intent driving those omissions, see United States v. Harris, 464 F.3d 733,

739 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The opportunity to cross-examine an officer who has intentionally or

recklessly made false statements to procure a search warrant is an important aspect of a Franks

hearing.”);

b. a suppression hearing concerning the execution of the raid, the

appropriateness and scope of the suppression remedy, and the lack of good faith by the participants

-3-
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 328 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2024 Page 5 of 7

in the search (all of which also require disclosure of the evidence of bias and political animus

sought in Part II.E of the Discussion Section of the opening brief supporting the Defendants’

motions to compel, see ECF No. 262 at 43-52), see, e.g., United States v. Accardo, 749 F.2d 1477,

1481 (11th Cir. 1985) (reasoning that “[b]oth parties should be given an opportunity to present

evidence touching upon the conduct of the officers,” and remanding for “a hearing on the good

faith issue”); United States v. Herring, 492 F.3d 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2007) (reasoning that a

precondition to the application of the exclusionary rule under Leon is “misconduct by the police

or by adjuncts to the law enforcement team” (emphasis added)); and

c. a hearing concerning the ways in which the Special Counsels’ Office used

privileged evidence during the investigation, and the resulting prejudice, which is relevant to

President Trump’s motion to dismiss on this basis, see United States v. DeLuca, 663 F. App’x 875,

878 (11th Cir. 2016) (describing multi-day hearing relating to extent of privilege violation and

assessment of resulting prejudice).

-4-
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 328 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2024 Page 6 of 7

Dated: February 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Todd Blanche

Todd Blanche (PHV)
[email protected]
Emil Bove (PHV)
[email protected]
BLANCHE LAW PLLC
99 Wall Street, Suite 4460
New York, New York 10005
(212) 716-1250

/s/ Christopher M. Kise

Christopher M. Kise
Florida Bar No. 855545
[email protected]
CONTINENTAL PLLC
255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 640
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(305) 677-2707

Counsel for President Donald J. Trump

-5-
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 328 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2024 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Christopher M. Kise, certify that on February 22, 2024, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF.

/s/ Christopher M. Kise

Christopher M. Kise

-6-