I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, she didn't delay it until after the election which is wonderful. However, I am not confident that the trial will be over by the election. Trumps team will keep trying to delay the clock with jury selection, continuances, etc. which may push it bast the election.
I feel the same way. However, one sliver of light in this is that he likely will also be dealing with several other high profile federal and state cases at that time also. The road leading up to the election is going to be very busy and stressful for him, and people are going to be calling him out on that. Or at least I'm hoping it will go that way.
Late May seems ... kind of late? I was listening to some qualified people talk about March as a reasonable time frame, both for the defense to prepare, and for the trial to wrap up before the election. Having it in May means that the outcome of the Republican primary will probably be known, very possibly with Trump as the presumptive candidate. Which then allows the defense to yell about "b-b-but presidential candidate, you can't hold him responsible for anything!"
That would be such a dangerous precedent tho
Step 1 : commit as much crimes as you can
Step 2 : become a presidential candidate
Step 3 : cry on social media that this is a political hit.
There. Loophole to freely commit crimes and corruption.
Well, we've already seen that that "logic" applies when Step 2 is "Become president." That precedent was already successfully set; might as well try to wedge it open further.
Keep in mind that this is a Trump appointed judge and she's essentially all in on the Trump train. There have been articles in the past month or so speculating what she'd do, whether push this off until after the election (which is what Trump wanted, and if he won, he'd make sure it went away or got buried, and would basically destroy her reputation as a credible judge, so that would play into her career) or have it before the election, which is obviously what Trump did not want. I think she's splitting the difference here, having it before the election, but months after what Jack Smith had requested.
FTA:
In an order issued in Ft. Pierce, Fla., U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon says the evidence in the case is "extremely voluminous and will require substantial time to review" and includes classified and top secret documents that require special handling procedures. She also says the case meets the legal definition of a "complex" case, requiring a more extended trial schedule.
This sounds like she's trying to appease both sides as much as possible with minimal damage to her credibility, reputation, and career.
Right before the elctions heat up. Just what he didn't want. 🍿
He'll continue to call it a hit job to hurt his chances, even though they did the same thing to Hilary in 2016 lol.
Honestly... That does seem like a legit fair amount of time to prepare for a trial. And in some weird way frees up his time for when he said he would be super busy so... Eh?
What's the excuse for waiting so long?
This judge has a history of some bullshit.
Yes I'm aware, but did she cough up an excuse?
(I can't believe there's no mechanism for removing her from this case.)
It's called corrupt judge Aileen Cannon. There's no excuse.
Maybe not that long but there are a ton of documents and motions associated with the case that will be put forward. All of the classified documents have special handling requirements and will have back and forth CIPA discussions about what needs to be included in the record or not etc. That this court in Florida doesn't have that much experience running. Things that make giving the defendant a fair trial so he has less to stand on when he and his followers call it a witch hunt.
He'll die of old age before this reaches an end
Let's be honest, Trump is never actually going to go to court. He will be found in contempt and then he'll post something on Twitter and nothing will happen.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News