Special counsel Jack Smith, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, and Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, U.S. Senate via AP, AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump have requested an extension of two weeks from the judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago case. The request is in response to special counsel Jack Smith’s pretrial motions regarding discovery. One of the reasons cited for the extension is the need to prepare for the upcoming New York hush-money trial, scheduled for March 25. Interestingly, the filing did not mention that the Trump defense team has also moved to postpone the state trial until after the U.S. Supreme Court provides clarity on the “scope of the presidential immunity doctrine.”
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had previously established a deadline of Thursday, March 14th for the submission of replies on pending pretrial motions. Additionally, she scheduled a hearing for the same morning. These scheduling decisions, among others, have resulted in a backlog of unresolved motions, which the Trump lawyers have sought relief from on Monday.
Trump attorneys have requested an extension until March 24 to respond to issues concerning the scope of the prosecution team and discovery. They assure that their intention is not to cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings. The defense, on the other hand, is ready to file replies on motions to dismiss the indictment based on the Presidential Records Act and Espionage Act, citing “unconstitutional vagueness,” in time for the March 14 hearing.
“The defense has stated that the resolution of the discovery motions may necessitate additional briefing on the pretrial motions. Therefore, they respectfully argue that granting the requested extensions would not cause any actual delay or prejudice to the Office.”
The defense lawyers are requesting additional time for a specific reason, as highlighted by the following statement:
The reasons for this request are that (1) the Defendants and counsel need to travel to Fort Pierce prior to March 14 in order to participate in the hearing, which is time we would otherwise use to prepare the other reply submissions; (2) President Trump and counsel need to spend time preparing for the oral argument , which is time we would otherwise use to prepare the other reply submissions; (3) President Trump and counsel are currently preparing for a trial in New York, New York that is scheduled to begin on March 25, 2024, and the need to simultaneously devote attention to that case and this matter has been necessitated in part by the discovery violations and strategic scheduling demands of the Special Counsel’s Office that have prejudiced President Trump in multiple respects; (4) on March 12, counsel for Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira are reviewing physical evidence possessed by the Office that is potentially relevant to their reply submissions; and (5) Defendant Nauta is in the process of conferring with the Office regarding access to materials relating to grand jury practices in the District of Columbia that are relevant to his reply in support of pending selective and vindictive prosecution motion .
Trump attorneys are currently working to adjourn Trump’s New York criminal trial until after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decides the case of Trump v. United States. This case is set for argument on April 25. Although not mentioned in the filing, this parallel effort is underway.
The New York filing, which was dated March 7 but was first noticed on Monday, states that it is necessary to postpone the trial in order to receive additional guidance from the Supreme Court. The purpose of this guidance is to ensure that the presidential immunity doctrine can be properly applied to the evidence that the prosecution intends to present during the trial.
Manhattan DA criticizes Trump lawyers for disregarding fraud judge’s determination on Michael Cohen’s credibility while expressing concerns about perjury before hush-money trial.
The evidence presented by Trump lawyers portrays this as a “fictitious so-called ‘pressure campaign'” against Michael Cohen, the former fixer, in 2018, during Trump’s presidency.
This is one of Trump's tweets that his lawyers want to keep from a jury, on the theory of immunity that posting it was an "official act" of his presidency.
It's a tweet apparently showing Trump's knowledge of the system of reimbursements at the center of his criminal charges. pic.twitter.com/1o3Yg5s2dZ
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) March 11, 2024
President Trump is requesting an adjournment of the trial in order to wait for guidance from the Supreme Court. The purpose is to ensure that the presidential immunity doctrine is properly applied to the evidence that will be presented at trial. The motion states that, following the Supreme Court’s guidance and in line with the remand in the Blassingame case, a hearing should be held to identify and exclude any official-acts evidence that is protected by presidential immunity.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche signed both the Mar-a-Lago filing and New York filing.
Read More:
- Mayorkas wins court case on parole program
- Defense companies are refusing to work with their largest client due to contract losses