In an 11-page filing signed by assistant special counsel David Harbach, prosecutors said federal law and the Constitution require the trial to be put on as soon as practical — not with an “open-ended” date built around Trump’s political calendar.
“There is no basis in law or fact for proceeding in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the Defendants provide none,” Harbach writes. …
“The Defendants are, of course, free to make whatever arguments they like for dismissal of the indictment, and the Government will respond promptly,” he said. “But they should not be permitted to gesture at a baseless legal argument, call it ‘novel’ and then claim the court will require an indefinite continuance in order to resolve it.” …
“The demands of Defendants’ professional schedules do not provide a basis to delay trial in this case,” Harbach wrote. “Many indicted defendants have demanding jobs that require a considerable amount of their time and energy, or a significant amount of travel. The Speedy Trial Act contemplates no such factor as a basis for a continuance, and the Court should not indulge it here.”
[I wondered if Trump’s legal team might have gotten too impatient. The smarter strategy would have been to ask for a series of continuances for normal purposes and string the court along for enough time to make a post-election trial the most practical solution. They may have blown a chance to use that strategy by making their ambition too plain with this one. We’ll see what Judge Aileen Cannon decides soon. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member