I'm still not following the point you're trying to make.
The Carroll case was a civil case where President Trump was found liable (not guilty). The documents case in Florida is a felony criminal case.
You're wrong on the law. "Summary judgment" only applies to civil cases in the United States. In criminal cases, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial so a summary judgment is not allowed. President Trump could not have possibly "asked for a summary judgment to dismiss" as you stated.
What is "asking for summary judgment" versus "he got a summary judgment" supposed to imply? In the Carroll case, it was Carroll's team that asked for a summary judgment and the judge partially granted it. In the James case, she asked for summary judgment and Ergoron granted that, too.
It was President Trump who filed a motion to dismiss in the federal documents case claiming that the Presidential Records Act was too vague to defend against. This is not asking for a "summary judgment." The judge declined to rule on the motion now, but did not rule out making a ruling later.
The Trump team also filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on selective prosecution following the Hur Report regarding Biden and documents. The judge has not ruled on that motion yet. I hypothesized above that the judge might have deferred on granting the motion to dismiss via the Presidential Records Act because she might be considering dismissing based on selective prosecution, making setting a precedent on the Presidential Records Act unripe at this time. That's what I was thinking when I said "often look for" ways to defer ruling on something until later.
So I ask again, what was your point of attacking me by referencing the Carroll civil case in New York in a thread about the federal documents case in Florida?
-PJ
his point was that he’s dying for everyone to know he’s a full blown leftard which, by definition, have zero interest in facts or truth.
thanks, btw, for your summary of the case. I think you’re right; it seems blatant to me that she’ll dismiss based on the fact that the law is not evenly being applied.