The prosecutors clearly say that this December is about to start a trial and urge Cannon not to set a trial date now, but it is clear that Trump’s lawyers oppose any trial that may begin during the presidential election, which will begin in earnest. later this year. Assuming Trump wins the Republican nomination, the defense ministry appears to be pushing for nearly a year of delay beyond what prosecutors are seeking.
This strategy is in line with Trump’s legal strategy: removing long-standing issues and hoping for constitutional reform. But this time, he’s trying to stop a case that could have put him in prison for a long time if convicted — the former president’s first impeachment.
In addition, if Trump wins the election, he will have the legal and legislative tools to thwart the efforts of his opponents. For example, he has already announced the power of “pardon” – the use of presidential power without examination. They can also appoint the heads of the Ministry of Justice, who can only decide to pull the plug on crimes that are about to happen.
In the midnight prayers, defense attorneys did not agree with these events, but they indicated many possible conflicts and other events that they say will be “impossible” to prepare for the trial of Trump and Nauta in the coming months.
One challenge that defense attorneys cite is a lawsuit filed in October in New York over New York Attorney General Letitia James’ efforts to impeach Trump and his businesses over alleged widespread fraud. Another is the indictment filed against Trump in March 2024 in federal charges related to payments to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
And Nauta’s lawyer, Stan Woodward, has four lawsuits scheduled before December — including one he’s trying this week — two of those accused of assaulting police officers on January 6, 2021, and one of former Trump aide Peter Navarro, who is accused of a violation of congressional law.
Defense attorneys say Smith’s rush to take his case to the federal court is unwarranted.
“There is no threat to national security or concerns about the continuation of terrorism,” the security group says, possibly referring to the opposition’s support for Trump and Nauta’s extradition.
Although critics have said that Trump’s case is simple – despite the difficulties that brought the former president – Trump’s lawyers and Nauta say that the case will be very difficult, which requires Cannon to make unprecedented decisions on the use of the President’s profile. the validity of Smith’s research and other factors.
“Therefore, a measured and timed consideration that allows for a careful and complete review of the processes that led to the prosecution of this case and the unprecedented issues presented here serve the interests of the Defendants and the public,” he writes.
A federal judge in Miami indicted Trump last month on 37 counts, including 31 counts of knowingly withholding national security information. Trump pleaded not guilty at a high-security hearing in Miami days later. Nauta struggled to find a local lawyer, but finally filed a complaint last week.
The hearings took place in front of a federal judge. No opponent appeared before Cannon, whom Trump nominated for the bench in 2020.
The comment urging the judge not to set a trial date came after Smith’s team and Nauta’s attorneys clashed during the first hearing of the case.
Cannon scheduled a meeting Friday to discuss issues related to the handling of confidential information as part of a future trial. But Woodward asked for a delay in the trial because of his trial this week in Washington.
In a tweet Monday afternoon, Smith’s group’s opponents strongly opposed any delay. However, by late afternoon the dispute appeared to be settled, with both sides scheduled to appear in Cannon’s Fort Pierce, Fla., court next Tuesday. However, the change requires a judge’s signature, which is expected to happen Monday night.
During the hearing, defense attorneys said they wanted to try to ensure that none of the evidence presented in Trump’s trial was withheld from the public.
“The plaintiffs believe that there should be no ‘secret’ evidence, or any facts withheld from the public regarding the impeachment of the President’s top official and his political opponent,” the attorneys wrote.