Prosecutors argued Thursday that a speedy trial was feasible since they were prepared for a swift and fulsome handover of evidence in the discovery process. Furthermore, the events surrounding Trump’s denial of his 2020 election defeat have been in the public domain for years. They also argued that the extraordinary and historic nature of the charges regarding an historic attempt to derail US democracy weighed in favor of moving quickly.

00:41 - Source: CNN

“Most importantly, a January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial — an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes,” Smith’s team told the court.

Given that Trump is the GOP front-runner for the next presidential election, while still denying the legitimacy of the previous one, there is a strong moral argument that the national interest lies in concluding a trial as quickly as is fairly possible. Trump is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty, like all criminal defendants. But it is also possible that voters next year could be asked to decide whether the former president, who could theoretically by then be a convicted felon, is fit to swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the rule of law ahead of a new White House term.

Smith’s push for a swift trial timetable was based on a set of legal criteria he laid out, but which CNN legal commentator Elie Honig called “extraordinarily aggressive.” It would give Trump’s team less than five months to get ready for trial, and to sift through potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, based on a schedule for jury selection in December, before the holiday season.

Tim Parlatore, a former Trump attorney, told CNN Thursday that the strongest defense argument would be that there was no way it could be ready in just a few months, noting that any sense that it was pushed to go to trial prematurely could factor into any post-trial appeals.

“That’s a stronger argument (than) just to rely on the Iowa caucus date,” Parlatore said.

While the law does not conform to the professional or political needs of the accused, Smith’s preferred date – which would also be a full three years after Trump’s attempts to thwart Joe Biden’s 2020 victory – will fuel claims by Trump’s supporters that the indictments against him so far represent a politically motivated attempt to prevent him from recapturing the White House.

Trump responded with a furious post on his Truth Social network, blasting Smith as “deranged” and arguing that while the trial should not be taking place at all, it should only happen after the 2024 election. “Only an out of touch lunatic would ask for such a date, ONE DAY into the New Year, and maximum Election Interference with IOWA!,” he wrote.

It is up to the presiding judge in the case, Tanya Chutkan, to set dates for a raft of pre-trial hearings and the main event itself. With her first moves in the case, Chutkan has shown a desire to avoid untimely delays. But Trump’s team has already warned it may need up to three-and-a-half years to prepare his defense. The ex-president has a clear interest in delaying proceedings until after the election since if he wins the White House, he will reacquire the status and executive powers that might lead to a freezing of federal cases against him. And if another Republican captures the presidency, they would face extreme pressure from GOP voters to offer Trump a pardon for any federal convictions.

Read here:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/11/politics/trump-trial-date-2024-campaign/index.html