Right, but as the government’s response (and many commentators) point out, such filings are usually made immediately, not two weeks after the event in question. For reasons that are now obvious.
In any case, as @Procrustus pointed out to me, she didn’t make an immediate ruling, but simply stated her intent to appoint the Special Master, after only hearing Trump’s side.
vs.
Trump’s lawyers waiting for two weeks is Trump and his lawyers’ issue. For the judge, the course of action is simple and clear: There’s no harm (to the judge) in asking people to hold their horses for a couple of days and, prior to getting briefed, every chance that the judge’s sense of who will win being proven wrong. Maybe Team Trump discovered something in the two weeks that made them realize that it was worth filing the request and, certainly, it’s conceivable that the government might have been spending two weeks figuring out the red tape around how to create a filter team that can sort through deeply sensitive materials, and hadn’t cracked open a single folder.
Until you get briefed, you’re just making up hogwash out of hot air. Better to wait and find out the whole story, first.
Let’s make the governments case for them, shall we?
PUSA is what’s squoze from an anal abscess.
“I did an excellent job organizing my stolen documents. Many people are saying it was the most organized carton they’ve ever seen.”
It’s a Perry Mason moment! Openly admitting to your crimes is why you can’t have nice lawyers Donald!
Everyone shush! Shhhh! Let him talk, or Truth, or whatever.
These documents that he had all boxed up… these are the ones the FBI planted? 
OK, this is interesting.
National Review just published (as in, 2 hours ago) an editorial by one of their Senior Fellows, long-time contributor Andrew McCarthy: “Why Yesterday’s DOJ Filing Suggests a Trump Indictment Is Coming”, in which he says this:
(Do note with that last he shows himself to be puro Fash, assuming this is all politically motivated and rather totes OK with the idea.)
This is no mere RINO, Andrew here wrote a book saying the true collusion in 2016 was between Hillary and Obama and he’s been licking the Trump taint since then. But even he cannot deny this any longer.
It may be paywalled, but it’s a good article.
Even more fascinating are the titles of the “see further…” pieces below:
Here’s that ‘After Trump’ article which may have caught your eye:
Hmmm. Yeah, with this quote (and others) I’m thinking the NR has achieved “fuck that guy” escape velocity:
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” – Napoleon
“Your Honor, that picture is bullshit! I keep my cocaine in the toilet tank, not just laid out on the table like that!”
BTW, Trump’s team has 2 hours to respond to the filing. I’m sure it will be quoted by legal scholars for years, decades to come.
He doesn’t have one now. Biden revoked it when he took office.
I’m not sure what you’re basing this conclusion on.
Each count of Obstruction carries a maximum prison term of 20 years. Each. Count.
Does each stolen document make a separate count? I don’t know, but they might.
No prosecutor is under the obligation to offer a plea agreement. They often choose to do so based on the strength or the weakness of their case. A weak case might bring a generous plea offer. Strong cases, especially cases where the prosecution wishes to make an example for future reference, often bring no offer of a plea.
DOJ has a righteous case here. And you can do the math on those Obstruction counts if they are served consecutive.
Even more appropriate.
That misses out the best bit of the Trump TS postings, which was where he said
Bolding mine.
So in his rant about the picture, Trump just openly admitted that he had a carton of classified documents in his home and that he knew about it.
I’m sure his lawyers will be thrilled about this.
I just reread the subject line of this thread. I wish the FBI had seized Mar-A-Lago. The explosion of Trump’s head would’ve been spectacular.
LOL, you’re right! I’ll edit that. My mistake. 
Which is exactly what the judge did by stating her intent to appoint a Special Master before she heard the government’s side.
I agree with the general cases you have presented in your posts, but I don’t see how they are in any way analogous to the case here. The Trump-appointed judge said she was going to do what Trump asked her to do before she heard the other side’s reasons why she shouldn’t.
There was no emergency. And the harm was further delaying the ongoing investigation, which is Trump’s long-standing modus operandi and clear intent in filing this bogus motion in a court he had reason to believe would be (and in fact was) sympathetic to him, instead of with the original magistrate judge, who probably would have laughed him out of court.
Still not getting it. 
is it meant to be funny?