Donald Trump is effectively saying that he should be exempt from trial for his alleged mishandling of confidential documents so long as he is a presidential candidate.
Special counsel Jack Smith proved he is aware of the attempt in a heated court filing on Thursday, the latest development in the epic tale brought on by the unparalleled drama of the federal indictment of a former and potentially future president.
Trump’s arguments are effectively for an indefinite delay in the trial, which is fueling the impression that the real goal of his 2024 bid is not to “save America,” as he tells supporters, but to save himself by thwarting a day of reckoning, possibly forever, in the case over national defence information he kept after leaving office and stored at his Mar-a-Lago resort. To reclaim the Oval Office after two impeachments and two criminal indictments, he is employing a legal strategy that doubles as a political one.
Trump is facing 37 counts in this case, including accusations relating to his alleged deliberate retention of the material and claimed attempts to hinder the investigation into the records, and Smith’s motion hit back at portions of Trump’s plea for a delay in the trial. Judge Aileen Cannon of the United States District Court heard from Smith, who said that the Trump team had lied about the volume and difficulty of the evidence in the case. Since Trump is a candidate for president in 2024, the former president and his co-defendant, advisor Walt Nauta, argued that it would be difficult to seat a fair jury before the election. The special counsel rejected this claim as well. Both Donald Trump and Michael Nauta have entered not guilty pleas.
The strong rebuttals were made in advance of a hearing in Florida on Tuesday, the first before Cannon, when attorneys will argue over the use of secret evidence in court.
In a separate inquiry investigating suspected attempts to reverse the 2020 presidential election and the events leading up to the mob attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, it surfaced on another day that Smith was probing Trump’s former inner circle. A source acquainted with Jared Kushner’s testimony told AWN on Thursday that the ex-president’s son-in-law and former White House adviser testified before the grand jury empaneled in the case. Hope Hicks, a former close confidante of Trump’s, reportedly testified in front of a grand jury in June, as confirmed by two independent sources.
These revelations are further evidence that Smith is conducting a thorough investigation into Trump and others’ actions following the election, and that he may soon make charging choices. According to one of the individuals, the grand jury is investigating whether or not Trump was informed that he had lost the election, which may be a very important legal matter.
Legal manoeuvring by Trump
It is common practise for defence attorneys to ask for delays in court proceedings in order to gather more evidence or prepare for trial. Trump’s long business and political career is replete with examples of him using delays as a tactic to put off or avoid consequences for breaking the law and the Constitution.
Given the extraordinary circumstances, every turn in this case, and every decision made by the Justice Department of the president’s successor and, depending on the outcome of the GOP primary and general election, his possible eventual predecessor, will be closely watched.
In his filing, Smith said Cannon there was no reason to believe Trump’s claims that he couldn’t get a fair trial before the 2024 election. Smith said, “there is no basis in law or fact for proceeding in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the Defendants provide none,” emphasising his desire for a trial date of December 11.
Smith rejected both of the Trump team’s main arguments, that it would be impossible to select a jury that would give Trump a fair trial and that the trial would be tainted by the use of sensitive information. According to the special counsel’s petition, “our jury system relies on the Court’s authority to craft a thorough and effective jury selection process, and on prospective jurors’ ability and willingness to decide cases based on the evidence presented to them, guided by the Court’s legal instructions.”
Trump’s legal team also added a political slant to its pretrial filings. They argued that the trial should be postponed until after the election since Trump is a presidential candidate being prosecuted by the Justice Department during the Biden administration. Most brazenly, his legal team contended that he would be too preoccupied with running for reelection to face trial.
This endeavour is extremely labour intensive, and it will last until the election day, November 5, 2024. The lawyers said in a brief earlier this month that Mr. Nauta’s role compels him to accompany President Trump on most campaign travels around the country. Preparing for trial with both defendants, given (Trump’s) schedule, is difficult. Such planning and time are massive undertakings, rendering the existing schedule impossible.
Smith dismissed the claim, stating that “many indicted defendants have demanding jobs that require a considerable amount of their time, energy, or significant amounts of travel.”
The most consequential part of Trump’s political strategy
The answer to this question is fundamental to the idea that all people in the United States are created equal before the law. Trump has regularly told his fans that he is being persecuted because of his politics. With these papers, though, he is also making the case that he deserves special treatment because of his political ambitions.
While it’s true that running for office may be time-consuming, Trump knowingly decided to do so despite facing numerous legal challenges. If his arguments are accepted and the trial is postponed, it might set a precedent that candidates for public office are immune from some legal processes during the election campaign. Politicians in the future could think twice about running if that’s the case.
Trump’s arguments are also indicative of his general belief that he is immune to norms and standards that apply to everyone else in society because of his position as president or former president. The first issue is that, although being a private citizen now, he claims to be authorised to keep highly classified material. Now he’s trying to get preferential treatment by arguing that his office is unique.
There is suspicion around Trump’s motivations for trying to postpone this trial. That’s because he could order the Justice Department to drop this lawsuit and any others against him if he were to win the GOP nomination and the presidency. If he doesn’t get the nomination and another Republican becomes president, that Republican might decide to drop charges against him. If Trump were to be convicted in this matter, the next potential president would face enormous pressure from within the party to pardon him.
The weight of Hicks and Kushner’s Testimony
According to AWN’s sources, the most noteworthy known detail regarding the testimony of Hicks and Kushner, the latter of which was first published by The New York Times, is that they were questioned if Trump was told he had lost the 2020 election.
Even though there is no proof that this was the case and courts have rejected all of Trump’s election challenges, he continues to erroneously assert that the presidency was stolen from him. William Barr, who served as his attorney general, has declared there is no proof of massive fraud in the 2020 election. Prosecutors may find it crucial to the election meddling case to prove that Trump was aware he had lost.
According to AWN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, “it’s the single most important question – intent.” Honig told AWN’s Erin Burnett on Thursday’s “OutFront” that “the best possible evidence that they can get… is Donald Trump acknowledging that he knows he lost.” Prosecutors would have a goldmine of evidence if they could pry from his lips the admission that he had lost.
