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.
——————–
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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY