Image 01 Image 03

DOJ Opposes Trump Request To Delay Florida Trial Until After 2024 Election, Wants Trial This December

DOJ Opposes Trump Request To Delay Florida Trial Until After 2024 Election, Wants Trial This December

Trump argued he could not get a fair trial during the election season, but the DOJ argues the election calendar issues are “reasons to start the process sooner rather than later.”

We wrote the other day how Trump Wants Florida Trial Postponed Until After 2024 Election.

Among other things, Trump said in his court filing that he cannot be ready for trial by December 11, 2023, the trial date requested by the DOJ, and that it would prejudice his ability to defend himself if the trial took place prior to the November 2024 election (emphasis added):

This extraordinary case presents a serious challenge to both the fact and perception of our American democracy. The Court now presides over a prosecution advanced by the administration of a sitting President against his chief political rival, himself a leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Therefore, a measured consideration and timeline that allows for a careful and complete review of the procedures that led to this indictment and the unprecedented legal issues presented herein best serves the interests of the Defendants and the public. Thus, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), based on the extraordinary nature of this action, there is most assuredly no reason for any expedited trial, and the ends of justice are best served by a continuance.

Additionally, the legal questions are significant and present issues of first impression. The intersection between the Presidential Records Act and the various criminal statutes at issue has never been addressed by any court, and in the Defendants’ view, will result in a dismissal of the indictment. The authority, vel non, of the Special Counsel to maintain this action likewise presents a potentially dispositive issue of first impression in this Court. Additional significant matters include the classification status of the documents and their purported impact on national security interests, the propriety of utilizing any “secret” evidence in a case of this nature, and the potential inability to select an impartial jury during a national Presidential election. Moreover, the extensive and voluminous discovery, coupled with the challenges presented by the purportedly classified material that has yet to be produced, will require significant time for review and assimilation. All these questions further warrant a continuance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). The Government’s apparent view that these unprecedented issues should be adjudicated on an expedited basis is simply untenable and ignores the magnitude of this case.

The DOJ just filed its Reply to Trump’s request, and it is asking the Court to stick with the December 11, 2023 trial date DOJ originally proposed:

… There is no basis in law or fact for proceeding in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the Defendants provide none. For the reasons discussed below and in the Government’s Motion, the Court should reset the trial date in this action for December 11, 2023.

* * *

The Defendants chide the Government for seeking an “expedited” trial (Resp. at 1, 2, 8), but in doing so they have it exactly backward. A speedy trial is a foundational requirement of the Constitution and the United States Code, not a Government preference that must be justified. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; 18 U.S.C. Ch. 208 (captioned “Speedy Trial”)….

DOJ rejected the idea that novel legal issues necessitated a substantial further delay:

Defendants cite two allegedly novel legal issues that they claim make this case complex under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii): the authority of the Special Counsel to bring and maintain this action, and the alleged intersection of the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”) with the criminal statutes charged in the Indictment. Resp. at 2, 7–8. The former is hardly an issue of first impression. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress gave the Attorney General the power to appoint special counsels, and in In re Grand Jury, 916 F.3d 1047, 1052–54 (D.C. Cir. 2019), the D.C. Circuit held that a special counsel appointed by the Attorney General has the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes.

As for the impact of the Presidential Records Act on this prosecution, any argument that it mandates dismissal of the Indictment or forms a defense to the charges here borders on frivolous. The PRA is not a criminal statute, and in no way purports to address the retention of national security information. The Defendants are, of course, free to make whatever arguments they like for dismissal of the Indictment, and the Government will respond promptly. But they should not be permitted to gesture at a baseless legal argument, call it “novel,” and then claim that the Court will require an indefinite continuance in order to resolve it….

The legal issues Defendants raise do not justify deviation from a speedy trial date, much less open-ended deferral of considering one.

DOJ asserted that there was no voluminous discovery that should delay trial, but it’s own recitation (pp. 4-5) seemed to contradict that. There are a lot of documents, video, and other electronic discovery, non-classified portions of which have been turned over. It’s one thing for the government to say, given its limitless resources and staff, that things can be reviewed quickly, it’s another thing for a small-ish defense team to do so while also preparing for trial. IF the judge delays trial beyond December, I expect the amount of material to be reviewed will be why (that doesn’t necessitate a delay of over a year).

But the heart of Trump’s request is the election cycle, to which DOJ responded (emphasis added):

“Defendants’ claim that this Court could not select an impartial jury until after the presidential election does not justify further delay here. Resp. at 9. First and most importantly, there is no reason to credit the claim. Our jury system relies on the Court’s authority to craft a thorough and effective jury selection process, and on prospective jurors’ ability and willingness to decide cases based on the evidence presented to them, guided by legal instructions from the Court. To be sure, the Government readily acknowledges that jury selection here may merit additional protocols (such as a questionnaire) and may be more time-consuming than in other cases, but those are reasons to start the process sooner rather than later.

* * *

Moreover, the conditions that Defendants argue will make it a challenge to select a jury will not appreciably change after the completion of the election. The Government’s position is that the best way to move this case forward consistent with the Defendants’ rights and the public’s interest is to set a trial date now, with interim deadlines for CIPA procedures and motion practice leading up to that date.

I’m not seeing a hearing date set on the motion to set a trial date, so the court may decide it on the papers, or still set a hearing.

My guess? She sets December 11, 2023 as a trial date, sets pretrial deadlines, and will wait and see if a further delay is warranted as the case proceeds.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Election interference. PERIOD.

George Soros has billions of dollars, and he spends his money to ruin America. Donald Trump has billions of dollars, and he spends all of his money on himself. Who do you think is destroying America?

Jr has a Trump derangement lesion in his brain

Please excuse him

I think Trump is entitled to the same “speedy” trial that many J6 defendants have gotten.

    mailman in reply to jb4. | July 14, 2023 at 5:34 am

    Its odd isnt it, that Democrats seem quite eager to get this trial heard but not anyone arrested a year or two ago for J6?? Really odd…almost as if Democrats need this trial to poison the well for next years election?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | July 13, 2023 at 9:50 pm

The Court now presides over a prosecution advanced by the administration of a sitting President against his chief political rival, himself a leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States

Not a “prosecution”. A Soviet show-trial. A persecution of an actual patriot by true traitors.

Of course, in this context, there is no such thing as a “defense” of the charges. The State cannot lose in such a demonstration to the people of its raw, unconstrained power.

Of course they want the trial fast. I already called this.

They want to rush through their precious conviction so that they can use that as an excuse to remove him from the ballot.

And the GOPe RINOs will all scream THATS NOT WHO WE ARE, NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, and go along with it, because they want Trump gone too.

It’s actually pathetic how transparent they are.

    gonzotx in reply to Olinser. | July 13, 2023 at 11:34 pm

    A actually, they don’t care anymore at all

    txvet2 in reply to Olinser. | July 14, 2023 at 1:43 pm

    “”They want to rush through their precious conviction so that they can use that as an excuse to remove him from the ballot.””

    This might make some sense if it were a Dem appointed judge in DC or NYC. It makes somewhat less sense with a Trump judge in Florida, which is about as likely to produce a friendly jury as you’re ever going to get. It seems counterintuitive to me that Trump would want to extend this up to and past the election when an early resolution in his favor would allow him to put the whole problem behind him and free him up to use it as a campaign issue. With it still on the table through the election, it would seem that he’d have to be a lot more careful about how he used it.

BierceAmbrose | July 13, 2023 at 10:00 pm

Given how well that last arraignment worked out for them, The Screaming D’s might not want so much of this before the election.

Tie him in knots? Every hearing is a campaign event.

    randian in reply to BierceAmbrose. | July 14, 2023 at 4:55 am

    That’s why the DoJ will, before the trial date, ask for and almost certainly get a gag order on Trump and his lawyers forbidding public statements about the trial.

The longer the DOJ’s flimsy case is out there, the more holes the Trump lawyers can poke in it. The DOJ has not produced full discovery, has no intention of producing some of the items they want to use as ‘evidence’ and won’t even admit they have filed every charge they plan on prosecuting. Their ‘full inventory’ of the Trump raid is about as vague as can be, which smells horribly fishy, particularly since they fought like starved weasels to keep a special master *that they approved* from going through it item by item.

Really, the whole case sounds like “The defendant did horrible things that we can’t tell you with these items which we can’t show you so trust us and put him in jail.”

the DOJ argues the election calendar issues are “reasons to start the process sooner rather than later.”

Sorry DOJ. Precedent is key in legal matters and given you STILL haven’t pursued criminal charges in the Hunter Biden Laptop corruption evidence or the Russian Collusion hoax (which you knew of before, during and after the last national election) this one can wait.

Set the concept of fairness aside for a moment. This is a simple matter of following legal precedence and equal treatment under the law.

retiredcantbefired | July 14, 2023 at 10:22 am

Equal treatment under the law?

That’s the last thing Garland and Biden’s DOJ would ever want.

    If Smith wanted “equal treatment” he would have to indict every living former president as they all have done, and have the very same type of documents that Trump is getting persecuted for

This particular DOJ opposes anything to do with the “J” part (of DoJ), and fixates only the “D” part (of DoJ).

Peter Floyd | July 14, 2023 at 4:10 pm

I agree the Judge will set the case for December 11 and then dismiss the case once a jury is selected together with a scathing opinion branding the entire case as a witch hunt. In the meantime the Kabuki play will run. Other than the screams from the Left and their MSM that will end the Smith fantasy of convicting Trump. Garland, Smith and the rest of the scum at the DOJ are doing a great job in both securing Trump the nomination and ensuring his election. THeir campaign of election interference and intimidation has awakened a mass of new voters and Trump;’ poll numbers are increasing while the Democrats are falling. They have a problem with Judge Cannon, a conservative appointed byTrump who is also very ambitious and knows Trump will reward her with a SCOTUS seat when he regains he White House. Judge Cannon can be counted on to provide maximum legal and political support and will most probably dismiss the case at an opportune time to boost Trump’s campaign against Biden. IMHO the best opportunity would be to have the trial, allow Smith to present his ridiculous case, and then have Trump’s motion for summary dismissal granted by Cannon together with a scathing opinion that reduces the Biden campaign to rubble. Of course, they can print more ballots and brazenly attempt to steal the election but that is another matter.

    retiredcantbefired in reply to Peter Floyd. | July 14, 2023 at 5:26 pm

    I’d love to see that result.

    Whether Judge Cannon rules to dismiss the case or not, the pathetic excuse for a legal proceeding needs to be over and done with ASAP.

    I have a request for the lawyers who contribute to this site.

    I understand the interest in weighing the likelihood of defenses failing, appeals courts staying injunctions (argh!), and in general of the Feds getting the results that they want when they want them, regardless of the merits.

    But I see a lot comments asking whether any Federal official will ever suffer any consequences for launching “unpredicated” investigations, concealing evidence, paying people to keep providing useful lies, spying on anyone they feel like spying on, obtaining bank or telephone records without a warrant, ordering social media platforms to close accounts or prevent the circulation of posts, and all the other crap that’s become part of the daily news feed.

    Perhaps it’s been covered before on this site (a few links by way of reminder would be good).

    Perhaps it hasn’t been. Maybe out of a concern that the answers will prove depressing?

    But it would be helpful to know what kinds of civil suits could be filed against Federal officials for acting unconstitutionally or just plain illegally.

    It would be helpful to know what kinds of criminal actions could be brought some of them (for deprivation of civil rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, whatever the terms are).

    Maybe the answer regarding civil suits is immunity, absolute except when its qualified.

    Maybe the answer regrading criminal cases is, yeah, right, Merrick Garland and his crew are going to file them./s

    Maybe there’s a ray of hope or two, somewhere?

In the interest of impartial justice, the trials for mishandling of classified information for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump should be scheduled in the order that the offenses occurred.