He doesn’t have any obligation to yet. But the D.A. is asking the Court for an order, so there is something they can do about it. I don’t know NY criminal practice, but I think this is an unusual request and unlikely to be granted.
Unless of course this is a “don’t throw me into that briar patch!” move. Can’t whine that the jury is tainted if you’re the one who deliberately tainted it. And any evidence made public presumably becomes fair game for any other cases that might pertain.
I’m reading the concern that he’ll dox people, not that he might make public something sensitive to the merits of the case. His usual evil strategy.
Trump seeks to move New York criminal case to federal court | PBS NewsHour
Judge sets hearing date on Trump’s motion to move criminal case (msn.com)
some things happening behind the scenes in the manhattan case. wonder if part of trying to get it to federal is hoping for a pardon, should things not go in trump’s favour.
That could be one of the considerations if that gambit would work but it’s probably because he thinks that they NY court is more liberal and inclined against him.
re: moving to Federal Court. Trump would still be facing the same State charges. So he can’t get a Federal pardon (he can technically still always ask the NY Gov to pardon him).
From the PBS link above:
The Manhattan district attorney’s office would still prosecute him and state law would still apply, but with the oversight of a federal judge, said University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller.
“It’s essentially just a change in courthouses,” Muller said.
So he’d get the same case tried in the physical location of a federal court house, overseen by federal judge (applying State law to State charges), and a jury from a bigger pool (bigger than just Manhattan). All the rest stays the same.
Just seems like something to file just because, but extremely unlikely to win.
You know this, but do Trump and his lawyers? I’d like to think his lawyers know it, but I honestly can’t say with certainty that they do.
Him being denied the filing adds another log onto his fire of all the ways the system is rigged against him. His entire goal is to be able to say things like:
They denied every reasonable request my finest of lawyers made. My every attempt to get a fair hearing in a fair court was rebuffed and their kangaroo court of course has now found against me. The injustice never ends!
Thinking objectively here. Getting a bigger jury pool outside Manhattan would be a little better for Trump. If he has a card to play, no matter how small the odds, he should play it. This is why rich people have better odds of getting off, they can afford to pay their lawyers to play all the cards available to them. More cards played = better odds = increased chances of getting off.
Just last month, Trump recently added lawyer Todd Blanche. He’s a legit lawyer (unlike the rest). He worked a long time as a federal US attorney for the SDNY; and has a legit private practice after that. I can’t speak to his character or who he chooses to represent (because I don’t know), but even if he’s a scumbag, he’s not a total hack as a lawyer. This should tell you that Trump is taking this particular case seriously. Because it is serious.
Either that or he’s trying to hire somebody who has an inside track to apply the corruption at the correct high leverage spot to deliver the outcome he wants.
Tomorrow trump will appear by video in court to be sure he understands the restrictions that have been ruled on by the judge.
This should be interesting.
My comments on the link in the last post:
As I expected, and, given the alternative of interfering with democracy, what should be done:
This also struck me:
Well, that doesn’t sound right. Did they shut down court when trying famous old-time mafia chiefs? There should be a balancing of Trump’s security with the rights of other defendants to a speedy trial.
Well, that also doesn’t sound right. It goes against giving him “every opportunity possible to advance his candidacy.” And it would apparently stop other court business, which is also unacceptable.
Donald Trump isn’t the only one endangered when he puts on a public spectacle.
reporting from msnbc, the judge was very firm with all involved. he did not go through line by line but made it clear that trump was bound by the rules and there will be consequences.
trial date is march 25th 2024 that is a firm date.
Trump to appear in N.Y. criminal case for first time since arraignment (nbcnews.com)
This is so deep in the primary season that if an early strong front-runner like Trump doesn’t have it wrapped up by then, he probably isn’t getting the nomination regardless. So I don’t have a big problem with the delay on the basis of interfering with the election.
But I still do not like waiting for months. If this was a bailable offense (Trump’s isn’t), the presumed innocent who can’t afford bail would spend months, in jail, being punished for something they may not have done. I’m not a lawyer, but why do they have to wait like this:
Would it really make our legal system worse if the defense had 24 hours to file its inevitable motion to dismiss, instead of three months? And why need it take the judge almost three months to give the inevitable refusal to dismiss?
In terms of plausible sentence length, this is not a big trial. If every such trial went through this lengthy pre-trial process, there would be insufficient resources to give all defendants a trial, leading to something I’m against – plea bargaining. I’m mostly against it because it pressures the innocent to give up their right to a trial, but see:
People have lots of other cases they are working on at the same time. And the documents that will be produced are expected to be thoroughly researched and reviewed. These two factors combine to make for a Justice system that moves very slowly and deliberately.
If the lawyer doesn’t have time available consistent with a true speedy trial for DJT, they shouldn’t have taken the case. I’ve read that law schools are graduating lots of lawyers who can’t find a job as an attorney, so this principle would not deny Trump a defense.
Sounds like a two-tiered system in which someone like Trump is going to get an unreasonably long and thorough pre-trial process, while the average defendant is pushed to take a low-legal-cost plea bargain.
I suppose that the judge wants a long time to write bullet-proof justifications for the motions he will dismiss, given that it may all eventually go up to a GOP Supreme Court. But I don’t think that equal justice is consistent with giving Trump’s defense and prosecution and judge extra time compared with the average case.
Ah, but if the justice system moved faster, then all of those other cases would have been concluded earlier, and the participants could focus exclusively on their current case.
It’s not usually to the defendant’s benefit to insist on a speedy trial. The issue isn’t the work load, per se, but just the practical realities of needing to coordinate schedules.
What leads you to believe that this is an unusually long time? Most cases, if they go to trial, are doing so about a year after the arrest was made.
And if a plea deal is reached, they can usually come in before that date by setting a change of plea hearing.
It’s unusually long because few cases go to trial. Trump can afford trial, and lots of motions before it, and so, apparently, can the prosecution and judge. Just as the NYPD can afford to close roads when Donald comes to court. But just because the government of the city of New York has the resources to give Trump this super-duper treatment doesn’t mean they should.
I said before that the trial date of 3/25/24 won’t overly interfere with the primary season, but it will interfere some. Next month would have been a better date for democracy.