If the feds and Georgia were going to bring cases surrounding the 2020 election, they should have done it at least a year ago. Voters have a right to know the evidence and the outcomes before voting. At this point it does not appear that can happen without a massive interference in our primary and possibly general elections process.
The Department of Justice has requested a January 2, 2024, trial start in the prosecution of Donald Trump in the District of Columbia District Court for alleged unlawful attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
In addition to my observations that the alleged crime is not clear (overturning an election is not itself a crime), I’ve noted the outrageous delay of all the prosecutions until the cusp of Republican primary season considering that the conduct at issue took place almost exclusively in November-December 2020, and January 2021.
Donald Trump previously has sought to have the Florida national security information and obstruction of justice case delayed to after the 2024 election. That request, as least so far, has been denied by the Florida federal judge, who set trial for May 2024. As least in the Florida case the conduct at issue mostly took place in May-July 2022, so the feds can’t credibly be accused of undue delay.
But not so in the D.C. case (or the Georgia state case). In Georgia, the local prosecutor is seeking an early March 2024 trial in a case with 19 defendants plus 30 unindicted co-consiprators, covering over 40 counts including a wide-ranging RICO count, in a case that was just filed. Equally if not more outrageous than the D.C. request for a January 2, 2024 trial.
BREAKING: Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis is seeking for a March 4, 2024 trial date for Donald Trump, right in the middle of election season.
They are actively interfering in the 2024 election right in front of your eyes and they don't even care.
Earlier this week, Willis acted… pic.twitter.com/Q9T7ikLjNq
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 16, 2023
Trump has filed his response to the government’s request in the D.C. case for a January 2, 2024, trial start. The papers are well written (much higher quality than has been filed for Trump on the Florida case), and persuasively argue that a January 2, 2024, trial start is impossible without prejudicing Trump’s right to a fair defense. Whether kicking the trial off to April 2026 makes sense, is a different matter, and including such a long delay undermines Trump’s otherwise excellent Reponse.
From the Response:
This is an unprecedented case in American history. The incumbent administration has targeted its primary political opponent—and leading candidate in the upcoming presidential election—with criminal prosecution. The administration has devoted tens of millions of dollars to this effort, creating a special counsel’s office with dozens of employees, many of whom are apparently assigned full-time to this case and this case alone.
Taking full advantage of the administration’s blank check,1 the government spent over twoand-a-half years investigating this matter. It, among other things, interviewed and subpoenaed hundreds of witnesses, executed over 40 search warrants, and compiled information from countlessindividual sources. The government included some, but not all, of these materials in a massive, 8.5-terabyte initial production, totaling over 11.5 million pages, together with native files, recordings, and other electronic data not amenable to pagination.
In this District, ordinary order when faced with such overwhelming discovery is to set a reasonable trial schedule, commensurate with the size and scope of discovery and complexity of the legal issues. The government rejects this sensible approach. Instead, it seeks a trial calendar more rapid than most no-document misdemeanors, requesting just four months from the beginning of discovery to jury selection. The government’s objective is clear: to deny President Trump and his counsel a fair ability to prepare for trial. The Court should deny the government’s request.
The public interest lies in justice and fair trial, not a rush to judgment. Moreover, if the rights to due process and counsel are to mean anything, a defendant must have adequate time to defend himself. The Speedy Trial Act embraces these considerations and so, too, should the Court. Accordingly, President Trump respectfully requests the Court schedule this case to begin on the April 2026 trial calendar, with the following interim control dates:
• Week of December 4, 2023: Discovery Status Conference and Motions Hearing
• Week of April 15, 2024: Discovery Status Conference and Motions Hearing
• Week of August 5, 2024: Discovery Status Conference and Motions Hearing
• August 1, 2024: Rule 12 and Other Dispositive Motions Due
• August 22, 2024: Oppositions to Rule 12 and Other Dispositive Motions Due
• September 5, 2024: Replies in Support of Rule 12 and Other Dispositive Motions Due
• Week of December 2, 2024: Discovery Status Conference and Motions Hearing
• Week of April 7, 2025: Discovery Status Conference and Motions Hearing
• Week of August 4, 2025: Discovery Status Conference and Motions Hearing
• Week of December 1, 2025: Discovery Status Conference and Motions Hearing
• January 29, 2026: Motions in Limine Due
• February 12, 2026: Oppositions to Motions in Limine Due
• February 19, 2026: Replies in Support of Motions in Limine Due
• Week of March 2, 2026: Motions Hearing
• Week of March 23, 2026: Final Pretrial Conference
• April 2026: Jury Selection and Trial2
Civil lawyers who do don’t have to try those cases w/in 5 months of first getting the data (which is just the 1st drop, btw.) And criminal lawyers often have civil experience as well, but most civil lawyers don’t have criminal experience, esp. federal (former AUSAs excepted.) https://t.co/z4FNFiKb5v
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) August 18, 2023
Why weaken the papers with a pretty outrageous request for an April 2026 trial? That’s between Trump and his lawyers, but it sounds like Trump speaking.
If the feds and Georgia were going to bring cases surrounding the 2020 election, they should have done it at least a year ago. I wish they had not brought the cases, but having brought them, voters have a right to know the evidence and the outcomes before voting. At this point it does not appear that can happen without a massive interference in our primary and possibly general elections process.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.