Feds Request January 2 Trial Start In DC Case Against Trump
The government is not wrong that it’s in the public interest to have an early trial, before people start voting in Iowa in mid January, but then the feds should have brought this case (if at all) a year ago. The timing of all these trials, possibly 4 in 2024, is election interference.
The trial in DC against Trump relating to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election involves allegations of a scheme that spanned dozens if not hundreds of people across multiple state lines. The evidence that needs to be reviewed for a proper defense must be monumental, including video, tex messages, emails, audio/video, and so one. The indictment alleges a scheme in multiple states and there must be upwards of 100 witnesses.
Yet the government wants the trial to start January 2, 2024, with jury selection in mid-December, as stated in its filing in response to the Judge’s request for both parties to propose a schedule:
In its August 3, 2023, Minute Order, the Court directed the Government to “file a brief proposing a trial date and providing an estimate of the time required to set forth the prosecution’s case in chief” at trial. The Government proposes that trial begin on January 2, 2024, and estimates that its case in chief will take no longer than four to six weeks. This trial date, and the proposed schedule outlined below, would give the defendant time to review the discovery in this case and prepare a defense, and would allow the Court and parties to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues. Most importantly, a January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial—an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes.
The government is not wrong that it’s in the public interest to have an early trial. Voters should know the evidence against Trump before voting, and whether it backs up or doesn’t back up the indictment. That’s why the government should have brought this case a year ago (if at all), considering the events at issue took place in late 2020 and the first half of January 2021.
There could be at least three, maybe four, trial in 2024. The timing is election interference (which may help Trump in the primaries, but will hurt him in a general election if he is the nominee.)
Additionally, the defendant, any defendant, has a right to a fair trial and I expect that Trump’s team will object to such a quick schedule.
Here is the pretrial schedule proposed by the feds:
• September 25, 2023: Rule 12 and other dispositive motions
• October 16, 2023: Oppositions to Rule 12 and other dispositive motions
• October 25, 2023: Replies in Support of Rule 12 and other dispositive motions
• TBD: Motions Hearing
• November 13, 2023: Motions in Limine
• November 27, 2023: Oppositions to Motions in Limine
• December 4, 2023: Replies in Support of Motions in Limine
• December 8, 2023: Final Pretrial Conference
• December 11, 2023: Jury Selection
• January 2, 2024: Trial
Trump’s response is due in a week.
Trump criticizes federal prosecutors for requesting a Jan. 2, 2024 trial date in the special counsel's criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election
A Jan. 2 start date means Trump may need to spend weekdays in court in the crucial first 2 months the election year pic.twitter.com/VEiL24R2ca
— Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) August 10, 2023
SCO Smith is going to end up asking for the DC case to be double-set with the FL case. If the FL case goes, then they will agree to continue this case.
If the FL case is continued off of the May trial date, they are banking on Judge Chutken making this case start on that date…
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 10, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Smith really is a hack of the first order. Speedy trials? How about the J6 persecutees languishing in prison for years?
They drag their feet like Biden walking up the stairs when it is a Dem, but do a jig (the Marxist mamba?) when it is about President Trump.
You’re still confused and looking at things with a pre 2020 (or maybe pre 2016) lens. The defendant’s rights aren’t of concern. The trial course is determined by whatever timeline is most politically advantageous to the democrat party.
Say, where is the Republican Party on this?
Where is that useful idiot Ronna Romney McDaniels?
Somewhere where it’s five o’clock.
So the Republicans are out drinking?
Did you imagine there are two parties? There are not, just the One.
Well, Donald Trump wanted “that useful idiot” to head up the National Republican Party. And he got her.
There should be a special prosecutor for Jack Smith.
There should be a special executor for Jack Smith. Fixed it.
Well, with all of these trials coming up, there has to be some flexibility in scheduling to keep them from all occurring at once. The way things are going, if there was a scheduling conflict, they’d try to jail him for failure to appear. They’re already calling him a “flight risk” – yeah, flying to his next rally.
The ‘flight risk’ crap is something else. If people didn’t know the govt bringing the case was intended as part of the punishment by an ideological DoJ they do now.
All at once? Don’t give them any ideas.
A candidate’s political death by a thousand fake indictments…
It does not get more bogus. A disgrace.
Any fair judge would take into account the prejudicial delay and extend the dates until after the election. Aside from election interference, it a violation of due process.
The worst part is that Trump 2.0 is a much improved version, largely due to his battle scars, and having already participated on the stage, with great success until covid was released from a lab, and people in charge of the science hid their roles.
We are a country in decline, a police state, and mean tweets (which everyone does) and fake outrage are the least of our problems, although you would never know it from 30,000 feet.
Most everyone does mean tweets, everyone
Excuse the bad edit, not deleting the last line.
Truth via tweet is mean, how dare anyone rub their nose in truth.
The fair thing to do, is to make sure the trial is concluded as early as possible before the “real campaigning” gets underway.
Magical Thinking v2.0 is a much improved version. Trump was a leftist & a failure and remains a leftist & a failure.
Up voted by mistake trying to hit reply. If Trump was a failure, they would not be trying to take his scalp. They have pulled out all the stops, showing that they are afraid.
Your confusion is really simple to explain. The standards of a conservative and a Democrat are completely different.
To us Trump was a miserable failure for not locking her up, the out of control spending, welfare, trade wars, protectionism, anti-gun rhetoric and actions, handing the country over to Fauci, and so on. (He campaigned on lockign her up, draining the swamp, being great with money and debt, ending the assault on the second amendment, and having the best people so those are especially disgusting stabs in the back.)
Democrats see him as a traitor for switching parties, for campaigning on locking her up, and blame him for her being so horrifically unlikeable that even he could beat her.
Sure, more prejudice Jack Smith Style.
To call Trump a leftist is absurd. The silliest comment of the day.
The guy who willingly himself as a Democrat in 2001 isn’t a leftist???? Bwahahahahha!
Here’s a photo of Trump for you if the above isn’t sufficient:
https://imgs.search.brave.com/hiUSLkuir7-OUUwvbTa4OFixHtShD36_nn3mYbGfarc/rs:fit:1024:651:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdGF0/aWMwMS5ueXQuY29t/L2ltYWdlcy8yMDE4/LzEwLzIzL29waW5p/b24vMjNicnVuaS1u/ZXdzbGV0dGVyMS9t/ZXJsaW5fMTQ1NzQz/ODM0X2FlNmRjZTQ4/LWVjZWQtNDZiYi1i/OTIzLWFjZTVmZDY1/MmEyMC1qdW1iby5q/cGc_cXVhbGl0eT05/MCZhdXRvPXdlYnA
Proofreading failure. “willingly” should be “registered”.
Reagan was a Democrat before he wasn’t. To call Trump a leftist is absurd and evidences irrationality.
That’s a silly comparison…
Reagan: Dem -> Rep
Trump: Rep -> Reform -> Dem -> Ind -> Rep
Trump was a Democrat when he was primarily a real estate developer in a Democrat-run city. (Otherwise, you TDS cases would have had many more Trump business failures to point at – and would have utterly ignored how all of these were due to corruption by the people who were running the city, people just like those you want running the country.)
You’re talking about the guy who moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem? That’s not the kind of thing a lefty does darling 😂😂😂
If that was the ONLY thing Trump did then your response would be a counter-argument.
Pretty odd that they would select a jury and then go three weeks before starting the trial according to this schedule. I realize that Christmas, and New Years are in this window but it just doesn’t seem right. Appears as if the Feds would fight immediate sequester of the jury after selection as well.
Hard to believe a selected juror would go three weeks without talking about the case and being selected as a juror.
You almost act as if you think the communists give a damn about a fair trial.
Just more nakedly transparent politically motivated garbage.
Watching Feinstein brings to mind that Trump would stand a good shot with the Twinkie defense.
There are times I find myself at odds with Prof. Jacobson’s view on 45.. but, I trust his take on legal issues, 100%. I was really glad to see him call this election interference. How much more obvious can they get?
The thing is.. I can see all the old norms, legalities,, whatever,,, they are just flying out a window, when it comes to Trump.
Additionally, the defendant, any defendant, has a right to a fair trial and I expect that Trump’s team will object to such a quick schedule.
The notion of a fair trial is a joke, when the charges and the indictments are contrived. SMH
When I read the reverent ‘professor’ being bandied about, and read such delights as this–
“The government is not wrong that it’s in the public interest to have an early trial, before people start voting in Iowa in mid January, but then the feds should have brought this case (if at all) a year ago. The timing of all these trials, possibly 4 in 2024, is election interference.”
I can only assume that these are the musings of, at best, a Harvard professor.
The government is, in fact, wrong that this show trial should be held early.
It should not be held at all. It is a grievous wound to the entirety of the American legal system, possibly a self inflicted fatal one.
There are no ‘if’s here. Someone teaching law at the meanest community college would know, and expound upon the injustice of this. These indictments, these ‘trials’ are themselves acts of criminality being committed by criminals to maintain their stolen power.
Any middling mind, trained in law or otherwise, can see that.
So why is it that, here at LI, always a bastion of incisive, cutting edge legal opinion, we’re suddenly getting …well, they have a point’ kind of thing when it comes to such clear persecution of, not just Trump, but the entirety of the right?
This is not only election interference, it is designed to punish Trump’s entire defense team by having to work through Christmas and New Year’s.
Re: From Government’s response:
The Government proposes that trial begin on January 2, 2024, and estimates that its case in chief will take no longer than four to six weeks.
How long will Trump’s defense and the evil Brownshirt’s rebuttal be?
This could keep the trial going until March!