Yes, but I don’t think that’s a compelling reason for the rest of us to go along with it.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
“Your honor, that’s the week the Metal Gear Solid Master Collection comes out. I move for a three month continuance.”
It’s more than 31 documents, it’s also a bunch of audio recordings and testimonials and other mountains of evidence proving Trump’s knowing and willful disregard for the law. I believe them when they say it’s a lot, I don’t believe them when they say they need more time to mount a defense.
It’s plenty of time to mount a defense, but no amount of delays is going to be enough for a good one.
From WaPo
Special counsel Jack Smith has argued for a December trial date in court papers, saying the case “involves straightforward theories of liability, and does not present novel questions of fact or law.”
Trump’s lawyers disagreed, arguing the case hinges on untested legal questions about the Presidential Records Act.
Again with the Presidential Records Act! He hasn’t been charged with any violations of the PRA, and no part of the PRA is a defense to what he has been charged with.
As Straocaster points out, it’s a straightforward matter of a simple and well documented violation including 31 documents.
There’s also the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
“BUT I’M NOT ENJOYING IT! fAKE nEWS! tHE DERP STAT IS TRYING TO TELL ME TO ENJOY RAPE!”
This, this, this.
I don’t know how much time is reasonable to take to litigate every sensitive information exhibit, but 31 exhibits in a trial is a doddle. Even if you add in the audio recordings and testimony, little of that is reviewable. It’s just standard trial fare.
Complex trials have hundreds, even thousands of exhibits. Assuming an 18-month delay to past the election of 2024, that works out to roughly 17 days of argument per sensitive-national-secrets exhibit. Really? Just doesn’t happen. And a lot of what the judge rules for how to handle one of those will apply to how others will be handled, too. It’s ridiculous.
Also, this trial has a time estimate of about 3 weeks – which I noticed the defense did not dispute. Even if one applies the usual thumb-licking judicial standard of doubling the time estimate to 6 weeks, that’s not a long trial. A long trial is 6 months.
So far as I can tell, there’s no good basis for a continuance of the duration being asked for by the Trump/Nauta attorneys.
But I’ll bet Judge Cannon gives it to them. Or if she doesn’t, she will as time goes on. (I’d love to be wrong on this one, but I don’t view her as a redeemable actor.)
Thank you for the informed perspective. Most of us aren’t familiar with what is standard in a long and complicated trial vs your shorter and simpler ones.
Your California experience is showing. 
Most jurisdictions complete trials much faster than they do in California. (not sure why)(OJ’s trial would have been 6 weeks in Seattle, at most). The case could be tried in three weeks.
I always figured the greatest delay in this trial was going to be the time it will take for Cannon to get up to speed on how classified/sensitive national security documents can/must be handled in a public trial.
LOL, it usually does. And of course your point shows that there is even less of a basis for delay than the Trump/Nauta team asserts!
This of course assumes that he’s guilty as charged. I believe in innocent until proved guilty.
There should be a balancing of the demands of justice and democracy. The best way to do it here is speedy trials, and for any additional indictments, for alleged offenses committed in prior years, to come very soon.
Indictment and trial delay is generally a bad idea because quicker punishment, for proven charges, makes for slightly greater deterrence. Of course, delaying until Trump could potentially self-pardon wouldn’t help with deterrence either.
I know I’m a minority here, but it seems to me that enthusiasm over almost anyone, let alone your political opponent, going to prison is not a good look. If the system results in that, fine. But be careful what you wish for. A prison sentence would harm Trump’s nomination chances. GOP party bosses, looking for excuses to get rid of him, might even use it to say he’s disqualified. And while Trump is the front-runner all around now, it would be even harder for Biden to defeat a middle-aged Republican. And they might serve eight years.
Nonetheless, guilty people should be convicted and suffer the consequences. On balance, it would be good for the country for Trump to be held accountable for his crimes, even if your thesis is correct and it increases the chance of a Republican beating Biden in '24.
Yeah, but that’s something people have probably heard of or at least bumped into knowing. They’re pandering to the low-information watcher, obviously.
Yes, I was being somewhat flip. And I’m also aware that future DOJs could conceivably muster bullshit charges against potential rivals in hopes of undermining their campaigns, but that ain’t what’s happening here.
I dunno, I like it when people found guilty of felonies go to prison. Especially when said felonies involve the possibility of state secrets being sold to foreign adversaries. YMMV.
100% agreed. Still worth it.
Is that quote literally correct? Trump is not asking to delay the trial, he’s asking to delay the decision to set a date for the trial.
That would have the effect of delaying the actual trial, but that’s not what I’m getting at.
It seems like the question at issue, for both sides, is “how long will it take you to be ready for the trial?” If the answer is “six months”, then the trial should start in six months. If the answer is “nine months”, then the trail can begin in nine months. It seems like Trump’s team is essentially saying “we don’t know how long it will take us to be ready, so don’t even choose a date, yet.”
Is that acceptable to the court? Trump’s lawyers know what he’s charged with. They know the evidence against him. What prevents them, at this point, from knowing how much time they need to prepare?
How much of a delay are they asking for before setting the trial date; how long will it take them to decide how long it will take them to be ready for trial?
And in such a case, a speedy trial is actually in the candidate’s best interests. I mean, if you could prove in a court of law that there really is a massive, politically-motivated, deep-state plot to derail your candidacy, that would give you a huge bump in your polling numbers.
I’m wondering this, too. Would some knowledgeable legal eagle address @Robot_Arm’s disturbing question. And the likelihood of Cannon going along with this request?
That’s an excellent point. If Trump truly thinks this is all just political bullshit with no basis in reality, why not prove it as soon as he can?
Indefinite. The filing says “postpone initial consideration of any rescheduled trial date until after substantive motions have been presented and adjudicated”.
It also mentions Trump is the current frontrunner for GOP nominee and both he and Nauta will be challenged to find time for prep for trial until after Nov '24. And they mention all the other trials Trump is dealing with and claim December is just too soon to adequately prepare. “We’ll be really too busy to deal with this particular legal issue” seems like an odd note, but there you go.
Basically, they’re implicitly asking that things get delayed until well after Nov '24 but they haven’t explicitly requested any specific timeframe.