Image 01 Image 03

Trump Wants Florida Trial Postponed Until After 2024 Election

Trump Wants Florida Trial Postponed Until After 2024 Election

Trump court filing: “there is simply no question any trial of this action during thependency of a Presidential election will impact both the outcome of that election and, importantly, the ability of the Defendants to obtain a fair trial.”

When the government filed a motion to postpone the August 14, 2023, trial date in the Florida prosecution of Donald Trump to December, all sorts of know-nothing chest-thumping large-follower conspiracy-types declared that was a sign the prosecution was afraid to present its case, and the prosecution was imploding. Roar!

Of course, it was nothing of the sort, it was fairly routine as the August 14 date was just to comply with the Speedy Trial requirements and no one thought it would hold in any case, much less in such a high profile case.

I detailed the idiocy of the posturing in DOJ Request For Delay Of Trump Florida Trial Has Nothing To Do With Strength Or Weakness Of The Case:

When Judge Aileen Cannon scheduled the trial of Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case for August 14, 2023, no one who knew the slightest thing about court procedure expected that to hold. Among other things, Trump doesn’t even have a full defense team (his prior team quit), his new lawyers will need to get security clearances to view classified documents, and procedures for the handling and control of classified material would have to be worked out.

An August trial never was going to happen….

The timeline proposed by the prosecution is fast for a case of this importance. While the “facts” may not be complicated, the procedures for exchanging classified discovery will be, as will some of the legal issues.

It’s really not difficult to understand.

Please ignore the people who are claiming that it reflects that the government is afraid to present its case, or that it thinks the case is imploding. And most of all, please ignore the conspiracy theorists who construct elaborate arguments and theories around it and so many other things. These people are misleading — most of all — Trump supporters.

Parting thought, if they are misleading Trump supporters about the Trump trial delay, about what else and who else are they misleading you?

Sure enough, Trump just filed his response to the government motion, and he wants the trial postponed even further out than the government wants, all the way until after the 2024 election.

From Trump’s Response, he first agreed with the government request for a postponement (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.

But Trump did not agree that even December was possible, and didn’t even want the court to set a trial date yet (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.

Get that? Trump does not want an expedited trial, and objects to the government seeking one. Just the opposite of what all the blowhards have been telling you.

So when does Trump want the trial? After the 2024 election (emphasis added):

14. While the Government appears to favor an expedited (and therefore cursory) approach to this case, it cannot point to any exigency or urgency requiring a rapid adjudication. There is no ongoing threat to national security interests nor any concern regarding continued criminal activity.

15. By contrast, Defense counsel submits that the Court’s paramount concern must be that Defendants receive a fair trial, which requires adequate time to prepare a defense. Requiring Defendants to adhere to the current Scheduling Order, (see ECF No. 28), and the schedule proposed by the Government, (see ECF No. 34-2), would be prejudicial. The Government’s request to begin a trial of this magnitude within six months of indictment is unreasonable, telling, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. Indeed, proceeding to trial on December 11, 2023, would deny counsel for the Defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and “result in a miscarriage of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i). Accordingly, “the ends of justice served by” granting a continuance “outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant[s] in a speedy trial.” Id. at § 3161(h)(7)(A);(see ECF No. 34).

16. President Trump is running for President of the United States and is currently the likely Republican Party nominee. This undertaking requires a tremendous amount of time and energy, and that effort will continue until the election on November 5, 2024. Mr. Nauta’s job requires him to accompany President Trump during most campaign trips around the country. This schedule makes trial preparation with both of the Defendants challenging. Such preparation requires significant planning and time, making the current schedule untenable and counseling in favor of a continuance.

17. Furthermore, careful consideration will need to be given to the ability to seat an impartial jury under the current circumstances. Proceeding to trial during the pendency of a Presidential election cycle wherein opposing candidates are effectively (if not literally) directly adverse to one another in this action will create extraordinary challenges in the jury selection process and limit the Defendants’ ability to secure a fair and impartial adjudication….Here, there is simply no question any trial of this action during thependency of a Presidential election will impact both the outcome of that election and, importantly, the ability of the Defendants to obtain a fair trial.


20. Respectfully, based on all of the foregoing, the Court should therefore withdraw the current Order setting trial and postpone any consideration of a new trial date….

There is nothing unreasonable about Trump’s legal position that a trial on December 11 is too soon. There is a lot to get done. He also has political reasons to want delay, so that the prosecution evidence is not presented and any conviction does not take place until after the general election (assuming he’s the nominee).

The presidential election cycle makes this a difficult decision for the judge. At a minimum a trial would disrupt the Republican caucuses and primaries, which start mid-January. Legally, the court’s concern should be protecting the rights of the accused, not the political calendar. But the political calendar is hanging over this case.

IMO, you either get the trial done in December, or you wait a long time.


UPDATE 7-11-2023

FWIW, this Speedy Trial Report was filed today:

Therefore, in sum, as of this date, five days of non-excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act have elapsed, and the Speedy Trial Act time has been tolled for 23 days. With the days that have been tolled, the final date on which trial can occur in compliance with the Speedy Trial Act is September 14, 2023.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Robert Barnes, Esq. has a compelling rant on YouTube as to why the charges against Trump are bogus and the case should be dismissed with prejudice. Assuming that Trump’s lawyers are not complete nitwits but are none the less playing along with Jack Smith’s shenanigans, where is Barnes wrong?

    mailman in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 9:08 am

    Bless, you’re still under the impression Trump will get a fair hearing 😂😂

    People need to get it through their fat heads, Democrats are coming for their pound of flesh and will get it regardless.

    inspectorudy in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 10:56 am

    You are also laboring under the delusion that Trump can keep his mouth shut until the trial. He can’t and won’t and will probably do everything his lawyers tell him not to do.

      mailman in reply to inspectorudy. | July 11, 2023 at 11:38 am

      Why are you more outraaaaaaaaaaged that Trump can’t keep his mouth shut than you are at politically motivated bullshit like this from Bidens junta? 🤔

        Danny in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 12:44 pm

        Could have something to do with him confessing to the crime in a taped interview and relying on a juror to be biased instead of listening to his lawyers that could have something to do with it.

        inspectorudy in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 8:26 pm

        Trump just trashed the Iowa governor and is going to miss the Iowa Christian Council meeting which most of the other GOP candidates are going to make. This is what I meant about his big mouth. And BTW why doesn’t he go after Biden junta instead of DeSantis? Have any of you MAGA zombies ever wondered about that? The object is to beat Biden and DeSantis may help do that so why does big mouth constantly insult him?

    Danny in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 12:43 pm

    They are NOT his documents those documents are property of the United States Federal Government period, and they are classified documents period and Trump did not declassify them.

    It is time to stop worshipping him. If he had done as the law required him to do and turned them over when asked he wouldn’t be in this situation.

      MarkS in reply to Danny. | July 11, 2023 at 4:50 pm

      Cam down, Danny! They are deemed to be his personal records when he took them, per a ruling by a DC Federal Judge and by taking them as his, they became declassified,..maybe this can help:

        Danny in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 8:39 pm

        1. Someone who like you is knowingly telling something that is false (a.ka. lying) should not start an argument with an insult because frankly being a liar like you….you started out deserving zero respect.

        2. You link a political hack who should know better on youtube? Great I could link the actual case he and you are lying about right here ) that professional liars an amature liars like you have lied about shown to you many times.

        Now to actually quote the case

        “Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against defendant National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Plaintiff asks the Court to declare audiotapes created by former President William Jefferson Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during the Clinton administration to be “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f), and to order defendant “to assume custody and control” of them and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Plaintiff contends that defendant has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by failing to exercise control over the audiotapes and by not making them available in response to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Defendant has moved to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

        According to the text of the case going over what the plaintiff claimed the case is utterly irrelevant. No plans involving attacking Iran are in no way similar to personal interviews with Taylor Branch.

        Moving on

        “The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).”

        So no it doesn’t allow the president to declare anything personal at least not according to a judge, or statute as written.

        “The categorization of the records during the Presidency controls what happens next: at the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist is directed to “assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” Id. § 2203(f)(1). The Archivist is required to “make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of [the PRA].” Id. The statute assigns the Archivist no role with respect to personal records once the Presidency concludes.”

        Wait so it looks like the judge is rulling that the categorization has to be made while president like Bill Clinton did with his tapes with a historian not just the president takes the records with him?

        Oh the wonders of being literate and reading the case before you opine about it.

        ” Indeed, the PRA permits the President to dispose of any Presidential records that “no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value” after notifying the Archivist of the United States and designated members of Congress of the proposed disposal. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(c), (d).”

        Oh so it has to have no administrative, historical, or well any other value? Again the wonders of reading what the judge ACTUALLY wrote.

        “When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest, he may exercise, with respect to papers, documents, or other historical materials deposited under this section, or otherwise, in a Presidential archival depository, all the functions and responsibilities otherwise vested in him pertaining to Federal records or other documentary materials in his custody or under his control.”

        Oh wait I was reliably told the ruling said nothing of the sort.

        Lets continue however

        “When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest, he may exercise, with respect to papers, documents, or other historical materials deposited under this section, or otherwise, in a Presidential archival depository, all the functions and responsibilities otherwise vested in him pertaining to Federal records or other documentary materials in his custody or under his control.
        44 U.S.C. § 2112(c). In addition, the FRA grants the Archivist authority to:
        notify the head of a Federal agency of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency that shall come to his attention, and assist the head of the agency in initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records wrongfully removed and for other redress provided by law.
        44 U.S.C. § 2905(a).”

        In other words no the president can’t just declare agency records to be personal records (which by the way isn’t what Trump did he took them without telling anyone which is highly illegal).

        Also relevant is the court looked at if they are personal records in the process Judicial Watch was appealing

        “On October 7, 2009, plaintiff sent a FOIA request to the Clinton Library seeking access to the seventy-nine tapes recorded by Branch. Compl. ¶ 12; Ex. 1 to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss. Plaintiff received a letter in response from Dana Simmons, Supervisory Archivist for the Clinton Library, dated October 9, 2009, stating that the requested tapes “are not [P]residential records and therefore are not subject to request under the PRA and FOIA.” Compl. ¶ 13 (internal quotations omitted); Ex. 2 to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss. The letter went on to state that “the tapes are personal records, as defined in section 2201(3) of the PRA.” Ex. 2 to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss.

        On November 2, 2009, plaintiff appealed the determination that the tapes were not Presidential records on the grounds that the tapes “clearly relate to or have effect upon the official duties of President Clinton.” Ex 3. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss; Compl. ¶ 14. NARA denied the appeal on March 16, 2010. Ex. 4 to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss. In a letter to plaintiff from Adrienne C. Thomas, Deputy Archivist of the United States, NARA provided the following explanation:

        In response to your appeal, first, and most importantly, the Taylor Branch audio tapes are not and have never been physically located at the Clinton Library or at any other NARA facility, and thus your FOIA request is premised on a faulty assumption that these materials are somehow within the present custody of the National Archives—which they are not.
        Id. The letter went on to say:
        To the extent, however, that your FOIA appeal can be read as requesting that the National Archives should make a further determination that the materials in question ought to be considered “presidential records” within the meaning of the PRA, we decline to do so. In making a decision on this matter I have to consider the nature of the audio tapes, if they were created with the intent of their use as government materials, and whether or not they were circulated within the Administration or relied on as policy documents. On the facts made available to me, I do not believe the materials in question fall within the ambit of the PRA.
        * * *
        For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the audio tapes created by Taylor Branch are personal records of President Clinton as defined by the PRA.

        Now for something I found enlightening

        “In Armstrong I, a group of researchers and historians filed a lawsuit to prohibit President George H.W. Bush from erasing material stored on the White House computer systems during the last two weeks of the Reagan Administration. Armstrong v. Bush, 721 F.Supp. 343, 347 (D.D.C.1989). The plaintiffs sought: (1) a declaration that the documents at issue, which had been stored on a back-up computer system, were federal and presidential records under the FRA and the PRA; (2) an injunction prohibiting the destruction of these documents; and (3) an order directing the government to classify and preserve the documents as required by the FRA and the PRA. Id.”

        Enlightening because that is what the judge called binding precedent.

        Furthermore how much time did you spend going over supplemental reasons why the two cases aren’t alike?

        “To the extent that plaintiff is seeking relief related to the availability of documents under FOIA, that claim is governed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 100 S.Ct. 960, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980). In that case, the Court held that FOIA does not give rise to a private right of action to compel an agency to retrieve documents that are not in its possession, even if one assumes that the documents were wrongfully withheld under the Federal Records Act. Id. at 151–52, 100 S.Ct. 960.”

        The actual text of the case effectively just reveals who the liars are because no the case of Clinton keeping conversations with a historian where he advertised what a wonderful president he is are not similar to taking classified documents and keeping them in your bathroom.

        People are routinely arrested and convicted for what Trump did, the only exception is Hillary Clinton.

    Mauiobserver in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 3:25 pm

    Perhaps the lawyers on this site can discuss why the Espionage Act should not be challenged.

    What I have read of it sounds like the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson got the act passed to stop political opposition to America’s participation in World War One and resistance to the draft.

    It appears that the Act had little to do with Espionage and a was mostly a weapon to use to silence and/or prosecute any political opposition. That is what it was used for then and is being used again as a weapon against Trump as their classified documents case was destroyed by the Biden and Pence document issues.

    For what it is worth I think that World War One was one of the dumbest and most catastrophic events in modern history and our participation was a huge mistake.

      Danny in reply to Mauiobserver. | July 11, 2023 at 8:44 pm

      Biden and Pence cooperated when the feds came for their documents Trump didn’t which is where the charges came in.

      That is also the SOP for the government, if you give them what they want that is the end, if you make them raid your home for it you will be charged.

      Laws about classified documents have gotten people arrested for taking selfies of themselves and refusing to hand over their phones for destruction.

      Unlike Alvin Bragg the special prosecutor has a very strong case here, and the case for Trump is being treated differently from Pence legally isn’t there because their behavior isn’t the same.

        Mauiobserver in reply to Danny. | July 11, 2023 at 9:38 pm

        Not too sure about that. From the now partially unredacted warrant it appears as if Trump did indeed turn over many documents.

        He apparently challenged others while complying with additional security requests. The documents were guarded by the private security as well as secret service in a pretty exclusive residence/club.

        Challenging the archives or even the FBI’s opinion is not obstruction of justice in most cases. A former American President or ordinary citizen is entitled to contest the opinion of any agency which is exactly what his lawyers were doing.

        Obviously, the issue is not the documents or obstruction or any other lawfare argument. The issue is an out-of-control regime, DOJ and administrative state that will stop at nothing to take Trump out of politics and quite frankly, they will be just as ruthless to anyone who dares to diminish their self-appointed power.

GravityOpera | July 11, 2023 at 7:40 am

Or Trump could ask for a speedy trial and have it over with before the primary campaign season truly begins. Except that he’s manipulating the trial date to influence the election. Pushing the trial past the election allows him to campaign as the poor downtrodden martyr.

    mailman in reply to GravityOpera. | July 11, 2023 at 9:11 am

    😂😂😂 Wait until you find out about all the shit Democrats have been getting up to these past few years to cement their grasp on power 😂😂

    This trial isnt for finding the truth. This trial is so the Democrat media can wank on about how Trump was found guilty, endlessly and breathlessly over all the various mediums the Democrat media controls. This trial is to poison the well amongst the low IQ and low information voters like yourself.

      CommoChief in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 4:34 pm

      Do you realize that if what you are saying is true (it is) then the logical result is Trump’s electoral ceiling is gonna be even lower in ’24 than in ’20?

        MarkS in reply to CommoChief. | July 11, 2023 at 4:53 pm

        do you realize that the 2024 election is just for show as the Dems have been issued no deterrent not to repeat what they did in ’20?

          CommoChief in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 5:47 pm

          I suspect that you won’t stop trying to convince folks about election related topics which indicates you don’t embrace your own claim that the ’24 election is ‘just for show’.

          Danny in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 8:46 pm

          Then what are you doing here? If you have given up stop trying to make us pick a loser and just go.

No matter how this rolls out, and the disrupted R primary that follows, I see the end result putting Biden back in the WH.

smalltownoklahoman | July 11, 2023 at 8:00 am

One thing Trump absolutely needs to be careful about during his campaign: the media trying to trip him up and say something prejudicial about this trial. The media, activists, a plant (heckler) at one of his rallies, they are going to try this along with their endless propaganda about him.

    the question is why is the DC establishment so terrified of Trump. Are Joe’s crimes that are being exposed just the proverbial tip of the iceberg?

      Whitewall in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 8:10 am

      Yes. Trump tells it all out loud which terrifies both sides as well as half or more of the electorate.

      Danny in reply to MarkS. | July 11, 2023 at 12:45 pm

      Nobody is terrified of Trump if they were they wouldn’t do things they know get him help in the nomination.

      They are not afraid of someone who can’t win the midwest who is capped at 46% of the popular vote.

    inspectorudy in reply to smalltownoklahoman. | July 11, 2023 at 11:01 am

    When he was POTUS he couldn’t control his emotions when a lowly unknown reporter would ask him a very stupid question that had no good answer. Even new pols know better than that. His skin is so thin that any insult or possible slight causes him to go into a “You can’t handle the truth” mode from a “Few Good Men” movie where Jack Nicholson’s character goes nuts.

      mailman in reply to inspectorudy. | July 11, 2023 at 11:40 am

      Why are you talking about Barry, peace be upon him? That guys been out of office nearly 8 years now. Move on. He ain’t gonna date you sweetie 😂

      nordic prince in reply to inspectorudy. | July 11, 2023 at 11:41 am

      Funny – if you had asked me which president(s) have thin skin, the top two would be Obama and Biden. Both have a history of losing their shit whenever someone even thinks about gainsaying them, and both have been endlessly coddled by the MSM.

    It is already too late for that. He already provided a gold mine to prosecutors on Brett Baier.

    Furthermore if he doesn’t have a way to impeach the credibility of his lawyers….., his lawyers have no reason to lie.

    You never know what a jury will do but right now it doesn’t look good for Trump in court.

IMO, the trial should be set for early December and the CT should backwards plan everything else from that hard date. This gets the damn thing done one way or the other before the meat of the primary/General election season kicks off in Jan of ’24.

The CT shouldn’t seek to put the trial into ’24 to avoid directly impacting the ’24 campaign. On the other hand the defendant can’t be rewarded for declaring his candidacy early then using his candidacy as shield to delay a trial, that would be a bad precedent to set. Nor can the defendant be rewarded for chaos in his legal representation, sooner or later you go with the team you have. As to govt and others applying pressure to his counsel, not great but not really that unusual. There’s always pressure in representing a controversial figure; some small town Attorney sues the local power brokers and they will hold a grudge, he won’t ever be appointed City Attorney nor get power broker support for a candidacy for District Judge. That’s the real world.

The other problem with delay past elections is what happens if he wins? Is Trump gonna say thanks for the delay and now I am fully ready to proceed the week after the election? Hell no, he is gonna then say I gotta do the transition then go be President so I don’t have time for a trial. IMO, b/c there doesn’t seem to be any reasonable limiting principle on delay in this circumstance the CT almost has to schedule it for December come hell or high water.

    mailman in reply to CommoChief. | July 11, 2023 at 9:13 am

    It’s obvious really, Trumps DoJ starts going after everyone who perpetrated this hoax on America and I hope they come calling with extreme prejudice.

      I’m not sure you get how this deep state thing works. The same DOJ that is there now will be there then (apart from the AG); that includes the FBI, CIA, IRS, DOE, DOD, pick your favorite alphabet agency. “Trump’s DOJ” was full to the brim with “the resistance,” people who proudly refused to follow Trump’s vision and agenda. At all. That won’t change if he’s elected again (he won’t be).

      Dr.Dave in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 11:01 am

      So stretch it out as long as the Biden investigations? I’ll agree with that!

      inspectorudy in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 11:05 am

      Oh, do you mean like he went after Hillary and her campaign after he got elected? Remember how he told us he was going to get her and her minions? We’ll be lucky if he appoints an AG who can read.

        mailman in reply to inspectorudy. | July 11, 2023 at 11:41 am

        And I was right there with most others saying how unsightly that would be.

        But times have changed so fuck it. Give Democrats a taste of their own medicine.

          JohnSmith100 in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 1:31 pm

          Give Dems their medicine x10.

          CommoChief in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 5:50 pm

          Gotta win the Presidency first to gain control of Executive branch agencies. That means fielding the candidate with best chance in the general election contest. Might be Trump but might not and that’s something some of us haven’t yet internalized.

          randian in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 7:43 pm

          The President doesn’t control the executive branch agencies, not really. That was the entire point of the progressive era civil service rules and subsequent union contracts: to make the agencies responsive only to their own politics, not the president, because almost none of their employees can be fired.

          CommoChief in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 9:13 pm


          Perhaps under the current paradigm of ‘make nice’ and don’t do something drastic like revoke the Kennedy era EO allowing union membership.

          Or less drastic, simply reassign the ideological hacks to a remote place in the Arctic for service on an interagency task force.

          They can either pack their crap and go to the Arctic or pack up their desk and go home but either way they gonna be locked out of the building, clearance revoked and authority curtailed b/c they are hacks. They can collect a paycheck counting snowflakes in the Arctic until they are eventually fired or quit.

          Overcoming federal employee unions isn’t that hard. Nor all that much of an impediment b/c the people with real authority, members of the Senior Executive Service, don’t qualify for the same range of civil service protection as lower ranking employees.

          It takes the political will and fortitude to make the, admittedly, tough call to bring them to heel. Lots of pushback and moaning but at the end of the day very doable.

      Danny in reply to mailman. | July 11, 2023 at 8:52 pm

      In addition to what Fuzzy said what exactly what they go after

      “You found exactly the same crime Trump did and that hundreds of people who routinely get arrested and convicted for it did, Hillary did that crime to, yet you didn’t treat Trump like Hillary and let him go for exactly the same crime”.

      They are enforcing the law. You should be mad at Trump for being dumb enough to break that law.

      Mauiobserver in reply to mailman. | July 12, 2023 at 12:05 am

      Amen to C Chiefs post on reversal of the EO permitting Gov unions and breaking up and dispersing the Federal bureaucracy to the remotest parts of the country.

      If the GOP wins both houses they should cut the dept budgets drastically in a reconciliation bill which we requires only a simple majority.

      For instance the Dept of Education could be reduced by 95%, the FBI HQ by 50%, the EPA and IRS by similar amounts.

Would it not be better to get it over with before the primaries actually begin? Either Trump wins and he uses that to boost his chances in the general, or he loses and drops out so DeSantis can beat Biden. I have a hard time seeing Trump win the general with this cloud over him.

    luckydog in reply to Othniel. | July 11, 2023 at 9:11 am

    “I have a hard time seeing Trump win the general with this cloud over him.”

    Netanyahu won his 2022 election in part because the citizens recognized that the charges made against him were driven by politics.

    The citizens of this country also recognize that the charges made against Trump are driven by politics – and recognize that a two tiered system-of-justice is very visible.

“Legally, the court’s concern should be protecting the rights of the accused, not the political calendar. But the political calendar is hanging over this case.”

• Trump has been out of office since Jan 2021.

• The unusual charges were deliberately made now to “hang over” the political calendar.

• The court can protect the accused’ rights by recognizing how the DOJ, et al is trying to use the court to impact the political calendar & elections.

    Danny in reply to luckydog. | July 11, 2023 at 8:54 pm

    They were made now because the government tried to negotiate the return of the documents with Trump first and he refused and lied to his lawyers to get his lawyers to lie to the government.

    I could get plenty of cases of ordinary people in the same position as Trump getting convicted.

    The person to blame for this is Trump who stupidly and knowingly took classified documents with him out of ego.

E Howard Hunt | July 11, 2023 at 9:36 am

This is a great idea. Should Trump be elected, defending himself will give him something to do in his second term.

What the judge needs to do is deny both motions, go ahead with the trial date on 14 August and dismiss this whole thing with prejudice.

It is a farcical case, built on farcical charges and brought by an illegitimate government..

Does she have the courage to do the right thing?

I have not seen a reason why Jack Smith requested a delay first, other than everyone knew the trial would not take place as scheduled. Trump is the party that needs the extension for litigation. What reason would Smith have to worry about making sure the date was extended? He isn’t going to be making the motions but opposing them. Why didn’t he wait for Trump to make the motion in the game of chicken?

If the speculators on the right suggested the original request for delay means the left can’t make its case, will speculators on the left suggest this new delay request means Trump IS guilty and wants to delay the trial until he can pardon himself? Or perhaps fire the DoJ?

Oh the spins we spin. 😉

    willow in reply to MrE. | July 11, 2023 at 1:05 pm

    I don’t know why Jack Smith requested the delay first. Why would he care that Trump had time to pursue litigation? That’s Trump’s problem.

If he were to somehow win through the GE, his new AG could justifiably do a thorough review of the case, send Trump a “mean note” about handling documents then request dismissal as a deeply partisan prosecution from the previous admin. DeSantis would likely do the same.

I am mentioning the name that is referred without mentioning the name. I read Sundance, not every post, but enough to find legitimacy in what he has documented in certain cases. Sundance is likely one of the people, if not the only one, referenced in the post here as a crazy conspiracy theorist.

[Below are the key points here chronicling the subpoena issued by the J6 committee accusing him of using the handle 1%Watchdog to communicate with people present January 6]:

Think about what was discovered here.

Someone inside the Twitter platform, an employee of Twitter, had made a decision to target me. As a result: (a) they had been doing this for a long time with a specific goal in mind; and (b) they created an elaborate trail of background activity and identity that was entirely fabricated.

Eventually, my assigned investigative unit admitted this.

Once, the federal investigators realized what took place they wanted to get rid of me -and my snark filled curiosity- with great urgency.

They also had an ‘oh shit’ moment, when they contemplated everything, including what they had revealed to me from the outset of my contact, now several months prior.

What I discovered in this experience was that DHS, and by extension DOJ/FBI and the January 6 investigators, had direct administrative level backdoors into all social media platforms.

Overlay the Twitter files now, and then expand your thinking….

In their quest to prove that I owned a Red Ferrari, traveled to Michigan and had a hit-and-run accident, these investigators outlined to me how the United States Government, through their DHS authority, has employees, agents and contractors with open portals into all social media platforms.

Yes, the federal government is inside the mechanics of the systems (Twitter, Facebook, Meta, Instagram, Google, YouTube, WhatsApp, Zello, etc) and they have administrative access in real time to monitor, review, extract and evaluate everything, soup-to-nuts.

It was only because the investigators and forensic data knuckleheads have these portals, that they were able to locate the source of the fabricated evidence they were originally attributing to me. This was an investigative process and research discovery being conducted in the data processing systems of Twitter in real time as they questioned me.

Once they realized what had taken place, and as soon as I started asking how they were making these admissions (now carrying an apologetic certainty), suddenly the investigators wanted no further contact or communication with me. You’re good, whoopsie daisy, our bad, sorry.

Now, take some time to fully digest and absorb what I have just shared.

    CommoChief in reply to willow. | July 11, 2023 at 4:25 pm

    It’s a routine law enforcement tactic to lie to suspects/subjects, exaggerate the information known to Law Enforcement and over promise to suspects/subjects in order to gain their confession and/or create the conditions to have the suspect/subject tell a lie to LEO.

    They can lie to you but if you lie to them it’s a crime. It’s surprisingly effective given how widespread knowledge of these tactics are but when LEO got nothing and the suspect/subject refuses to fall for the bluff then LEO has to fold and go home.

The_Mew_Cat | July 11, 2023 at 2:01 pm

I think the judge will want to hold the trial as early as possible – and will.

RandomCrank | July 11, 2023 at 6:32 pm

If Trump’s the R nominee, it’ll be Goldwater ’64 all over again. I will never understand the instinct for self-destruction. ’64 it was the Rs, ’72 it was the Ds.

    luckydog in reply to RandomCrank. | July 12, 2023 at 12:13 am

    “If Trump’s the R nominee, it’ll be Goldwater ’64 all over again.”

    1) Take the concerns of ‘can win nomination, but not general’ seriously, and have been trying to see if I can learn anything helpful from history (i.e., party lost general election because selected wrong candidate).

    • Over the past 20 elections – 1944 to 2020 – the Republican candidate won 10 times and lost 10 times.
    • The 2nd place Republican primary candidate for each lost election is as follows: 1944-Bricker, 1948-Stassen, 1960-Rockefeller, 1964-Rockefeller, 1976-Reagan, 1992-Buchanan, 1996-Buchanan, 2008-Romney, 2012-Santorum.

    • In 1960 Rockefeller lost to Nixon – 30,639 to 4,975,938. And in 1964 Rockefeller lost to Goldwater – 1,304,204 to 2,267,079 (57%).
    • Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 – with the help of voter fraud. And Johnson beat Goldwater in 1964 – but I am not sure any Republican candidate could have overcome the 1963 Kennedy assassination aftermath in 1964.

    • Setting aside 1944 and 1948, it wasn’t until 1976 that the 2nd place Republican primary candidate popular vote came within striking distance of the nominee – Reagan: 4,760,222, Ford: 5,529,899 (86%).
    • Ford lost to Carter in 1976, and Reagan beat Carter in 1980 – but I am not sure any Republican candidate could have overcome the 1974 Nixon & Watergate aftermath in 1976.

    • Romney lost to McCain in 2008 – 4,699,789 to 9,902,797 (47%) – and then lost to Obama in 2012.

    • Have not dived into the same Democrat data yet.

    2) Have no problem with the 2024 Republican candidate being decided by the primary process for many reasons. Including the conclusion that the historical data does not support the concept that the 2nd place Republican primary candidate would have won the general election; which makes sense given the platform, coalition building, momentum, etc. required to win the nomination.

    3) Since 1944 only two Republican primary candidates have received more than 10 million primary popular votes.

    • 2000: GWB – 12,034,676. In 2004 he dropped back under 10 million primary popular votes – 7,853,863.
    • 2016: Trump – 14,015,993. In 2020 he increased his primary popular votes – 18,159,752 – only candidate to ever accomplish that.

    4) 100% agree with those that have concerns about election integrity ^^ – 2020, 2022 & 2024 – and 100% believe that the Republican primary candidate that wins the nomination is the best candidate for the general election (see history). I will vote for that candidate – Trump, DeSantis, Youngkin, …

    ^^ = even JH at Power Line – who has been negative Trump for some time now – has a post conceding the public’ perception of election fraud and a statement that appears to acknowledge that Biden’ vote count was not accurate: ” The truth, in my opinion, is that Biden fell considerably short of 81 million legitimate votes, but he did win the election.”

Peter Floyd | July 12, 2023 at 8:49 am

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;s 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 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 steal the election but that is another matter.

The_Mew_Cat | July 12, 2023 at 2:07 pm

No way the judge allows this case to be extended to manana.

retiredcantbefired | July 13, 2023 at 10:09 pm

We are talking about the scheduling of what the Biden DOJ intends will be a show trial. The entire purpose of the prosecution is election interference.

Start the damn trial at the earliest possible date. The best possible outcome would be for the judge to dismiss the entire case—I’ve heard Rule 29 mentioned. But whatever the outcome, get this wretched simulacrum of a proceeding over and done with.

Then let the chips fall, wherever. I really hope no one who posts here is pushing for Trump to be convicted of any of this crap and sent to Federal prison so he won’t be the nominee. Donald Trump deserves to lose in the primaries, fair and square.

Even though I hope not, I can think of one commenter who probably does want a conviction and imprisonment so Trump is eliminated from running…. It doesn’t take a lot of column inches to tell us which Democrat you want to see in the White House, come 1/20/25.