Clarify please: Does Cannon's order prohibit DOJ from indicting Trump?

[NewsCenter28]

As in, let's say the DOJ plan was that Trump was going to be indicted by the end of the week for obstruction of justice. Does Cannon's order mean that DOJ can no longer indict for anything related to the Mar-A-Lago search? Presumably, indicting for obstruction of justice has nothing to do with what is actually in the documents? Or, pending appeal, did Cannon shut any and all things related to a possible indictment in this affair down? Please help me to understand.

[ShazamIam]

1. I was wondering if this move was to trigger an indictment to ignite the MAGATS. If that was the

reason when one understands the MAGAT power is a media created reality, they will be severely disappointed in any actual action by the highly turffed and media created MAGAT movement.

[Beastly Boy]

2. The way the judge's order reads, no, as long as

the indictment doesn't mention anything contained in or describing the items removed from Mar a Lago on Aug. 9.

[getagrip_already]

3. I don't think so, they just can't proceed based on the documents seized.....

They won't be able to produce or even refer to them in court. It would be like they didn't find anything in the search.

That makes any indictment in this case difficult. How can you claim obstruction when you can't produce or reference documents he was hiding?

How do you charge espionage when the documents can't be referenced?

Could you imagine what even a third rate atty would say in closing arguments?

But they can indict him if they have evidence not connected to the documents seizure. On any case.

At least that it what it sounds like. Not an expert.

That's assuming her order would prohibit them from producing evidence based on them in court. She technically said they couldn't use them to investigate. But if they had already completed investigation, could they subpoena them to court (at least a subset of less sensitive docs)?

[NewsCenter28]

5. OK that is what I was worried about

Unfortunate but thanks for the explanation!

[kelly1mm]

4. It depends on what exactly the theory of the case would be. If the obstruction of justice

charge was based on DJTs lawyers telling the DOJ that there were no classified documents at MAL specifically based on DJTs instructions then one would assume one of the elements you would need to prove was that there was, in fact, classified documents at MAL after that date. I cannot see how you could do that without the documents themselves being produced and showing they were classified. Now there may well (almost certainly) be sharper legal minds out there or maybe some other, totally unrelated obstruction count is possible but if we are only looking at charges related to the documents like:

1) obstruction by lying to the DOJ about there being documents at MAL
2) possession of classified documents in violation of the records act
3) improper storage of classified documents

All 3 would need the documents as evidence.

I would love to have someone with a different theory set me straight!

[NewsCenter28]

6. No I think you make perfect sense sadly

I just thought I found a loophole but now I don't think I did.

[Chainfire]

7. I watched all of the Perry Mason series and I agree.

The documents, if the order stands, are worthless until such a time that they could be reviewed and litigated. You know that the Trump team will litigate the scrap of the McDonalds napkin found in the bottom of the box. Unless DOJ fights this, it is a big win for team Nazi.

[WarGamer]

8. A pre-Election Day indictment was ALWAYS a long shot.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. No. Nt