In their motion seeking Cole Tomas Allen’s pretrial release, his lawyers argued that Allen’s intent to assassinate President Donald Trump at the White House correspondents’ dinner last weekend is “far from clear.” Ahead of Thursday’s detention hearing, they wrote that the letter in which Allen allegedly explained his actions “makes no mention of the president by name.”.....

In part of his letter explaining “why I did any of this,” Allen allegedly wrote that “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” When explaining his “expected rules of engagement” in the letter, he allegedly wrote that he “would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” As for the reference to “targets” plural, which would include more than just Trump, Allen’s alleged “expected rules of engagement” also included “Administration officials.”

When asked by a reporter for his reaction to the letter, Trump seemed upset at the reporter for asking and said, in part, “I’m not a rapist” and “I’m not a pedophile.” .....

In support of its detention argument, the DOJ wrote ahead of the hearing, among other things, that Allen traveled from California to Washington — specifically to the hotel where the dinner was set to take place — tracked Trump’s movements leading up to the dinner and, “armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a .38 caliber pistol, two knives, four daggers, and enough ammunition to take dozens of lives, was apprehended by USSS [Secret Service] officers mere feet away from the ballroom where his primary target was located, along with other members of the Cabinet.”

That Trump was Allen’s “primary target” is an argument the DOJ must prove, not merely state as fact. But it has reasonable evidence to back that claim, and further evidence may emerge before a trial, if one takes place. Of course, the government’s case can degrade over time as well. It’s at an early stage. There hasn’t even been an indictment yet, though one may come soon.

In any event, Allen is presumed innocent, and it’s the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the case goes to trial. If it gets to that point, the DOJ’s strategy might entail not only the obvious, typical plan of how to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but also how to do so without angering the president, who keeps a close grip and watch on the department.

Though prosecutors would dispute the accuracy of the derogatory description on the president’s behalf — or at least correctly argue that it’s irrelevant whether it’s true for the purposes of this criminal case against Allen— they would first need to explain to the jury why the reference so obviously applied to Trump