Maybe he’s trying to get through it before Trump has a chance to provide more evidence against him by continuing to blabber?
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
All Defendants go to trial together. He can’t make the Judge set an earlier trial date.
At some other time, he might be able to file a different motion and argue he should be tried separately, in his own trial - that trial could be set faster. But he’s not asking for that. It’s possible this might be something to appeal (he wanted but did not get a speedy trial), but I’m thinking that wouldn’t be successful.
Edit: Let me add I have not read his filing, so just going off the article.
It seems wrong that his right to a speedy trial should be thrown in a dumpster because everyone else wants to delay.
I am wondering, if you refuse to waive your right to a speedy trial, which by law must occur with 70 days after arraignment in Florida (if I’m remembering correctly), and they just ignore you or tell you no, can you request the charges against you be dropped because your rights were violated?
I was curious enough to look it up. This is from a website called Justia.
The prosecution may be able to work around the requirement if they can show good cause for a delay, or if the defendant agrees to waive the right. A violation of the speedy trial rule means that any conviction and sentence must be wiped out, and the charges must be dismissed if the case has not reached trial.
The federal speedy trial rule is pretty weak and easy for the court to find exceptions. The Constitutional right to speedy trial is not 70 days. I honestly don’t remember what factors are used for that analysis, as such a claim is very rarely made and even less often successful.
From my very quick Google law seminar 
it did say there is no constitutional time limit spelled out in The Constitution, but many states have a statutory time frame. The lawyer’s motion above mentioned 70 days when he demanded his right to a speedy trial, so i went with that number.
That may be the gambit he’s going for, but I think that all the prosecution has to do is point at the time requested for discovery review by his co-defendants’ counsel. His lawyer can take it up with them or file a motion to sever.
So his right to a speedy trial goes to the backseat because his co-accused wants to drag things out? That seems odd to me, but I don’t know how the Speedy Trial Act works.
If he doesn’t want any delay, his lawyer can always file a motion to sever and he can be fast-tracked while the others delay. Strategically, there are several ways this can play out. I’m pretty sure they’ll pick the stupidest.
Is it up to him to sever? Could the court grant him the speedy trial, and it’s up to the other defendants to file a motion to sever if they want to go slower?
It’s been decades (yikes) since I practiced criminal law in federal court, but I do recall the Speedy Trial Act had no real teeth. There are many ways to toll it, extend it and ignore it.
ETA: I looked it up
Certain pretrial delays are automatically excluded from the Act’s time limits, such as delays caused by pretrial motions. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). In Henderson v. United States , 476 U.S. 321, 330 (1986), the Supreme Court held that § 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes “all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is ‘reasonably necessary.’” The Act also excludes a reasonable period (up to 30 days) during which a motion is actually “under advisement” by the court. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(J). Other delays excluded from the Act’s time limits include delays caused by the unavailability of the defendant or an essential witness (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(3)); delays attributable to a co-defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)); and delays attributable to the defendant’s involvement in other proceedings, including delay resulting from an interlocutory appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(E). (Note, however, that the 30-day defense preparation period provided for in § 3161(c)(2) is calculated without reference to the Section 3161(h) exclusions).
excludes “all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion,
I guess that why the motion asking for a speedy trial pointed out that this defendant had filed no motions.
delays attributable to a co-defendant
Aye, there’s the rub.
The 70 day speedy trial clock is paused and will now start on May 20, 2024.
The Gov has to file periodic Speedy Trial Reports. The reports go through and calculate how many days apply toward the 70 days, and how many are excluded (e.g., a motion was filed and 20 days are excluded until motion was heard). There are many kinds of legit delays. The first report, filed in July, had about 5 days that counted over a month period of time.
Also, apparently in this case at least, when a continuance is granted all the time is excluded until the new trial date. The 70-day clock will start after the current trial date of May 20, 2024. See Second Speedy Trial Report:
In its July 21 Order Granting in Part Government’s Motion to Continue Trial and Resetting Deadlines, the Court excluded all of the time between the date of that Order and the trial date of May 20, 2024, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). If for any reason the Speedy Trial clock begins to run after May 20, 2024, 70 days remain before a trial must begin.
I am not a fan of YouTube Shorts. They are an attempt to imitate Tik Tok and I find them annoying.
However, this quick little video from LegalEagle talks about how bad Cannon’s screwup was in the case she handled in June.
Here’s a little info about the previous case, involving defendant Christopher Wilkins.
I apologize if this seems like a hijack, but we’ve discussed Cannon’s competency in regards to how equipped she is to handle this documents trial, and I thought this info would shed a little light. I don’t think Cannon warrants her own P&E thread, though I guess we can have one if others disagree.
Discussion of Cannon and her abilities to preside over this case are fine in this thread. She has enormous bearing on how this case is going to go.
Thank you very much. 
Thanks very much for being mindful of hijacking.
Re Cannon, in my experience, some new judges catch on to the requirements of the job very quickly. Some never figure it out. Like any other profession, quality runs the gamut.
But super basic things like omitting to include a “not guilty” option on a verdict form or forgetting to have a panel of prospective jurors sworn in before voir dire is pretty jaw-droppingly incompetent.
That’s all before we get to her bizarre, nonsensical rulings in the Trump matters.
I do think we’ll see Smith’s team challenge her competence to preside over this case before all is said and done.
Wouldn’t someone on her staff prompt her? Clerk, bailiff, the lawyers?
Not all judges are amenable to prompting, though that was a big part of our function as an assistant. Others were overly dependent on their clerks. It also depends on the relationship between the judge and the clerk. If the judge is a pompous ass who treats his/her staff poorly, that staff may be disinclined to mention an obvious error.
“Oh. Gosh. I never even noticed! Sorry about that, Judge!”
Now that you mention it, she may not be that amenable to prompts or helpful hints. She hadn’t learned from 2 slap downs.