Former President Donald Trump’s defense team asked the judge overseeing the classified documents case in Florida to postpone the trial, according to a filing late Monday night, saying there is “no reason for any expedited trial.”
    • Saneless@lemmy.worldEnglish
      25·
      2 years ago

      And what does cementing her career as a trump hack do to her? If it’s nothing, then it’s all by design

      • PoopingCough@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        2 years ago

        For real, like, has she not already done enough to cement her as a partisan hack? Why would this one more thing make anything different?

            • effingjoe@kbin.social
              5·
              2 years ago

              I don’t disagree with your predictions, but the whole point is that public opinion won’t matter if the judge is not a hack. That is to say, who cares if Trump says it’s a witch hunt if he’s charged again in NJ? He’s already saying that.

                • effingjoe@kbin.social
                  3·
                  2 years ago

                  I honestly don’t know what you’re arguing here. Are you saying the justice department should bow to public pressure and not attempt to hold Trump accountable for his actions?

            • Saneless@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 years ago

              To me that would be even worse. It would’ve Trump admitting he’d only get a favorable trial if it was a judge in his pocket

              His attempt at smearing Smith didn’t go anywhere

    • cerevant@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      2 years ago

      It is more than just that - I was reading something earlier that talked about the scheduling of trials in general: State and local trials typically defer to federal trials when there is a conflict. If she choses to delay, the states (NY, possibly GA) will step in and run their trials, which could delay things on the federal calendar. Federal judges do not defer to the states - if she did so, she’d piss off every judge on the federal bench - not just the left leaning ones.

  • Sc00ter@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
    25·
    2 years ago

    Shouldn’t the election be a reason to expedite trial? So people know the outcome of the trial… this logic feels backwards.

    “Hey let’s wait on the trial so I can take the time to try to get more power than you and forgive myself of all wrong doing.”

  • Someguy89@lemmy.worldEnglish
    171·
    2 years ago

    This is a common tactic by every defense attorney… Delay, delay, delay. In my opinion unless you have extenuating circumstances, the request should always be denied.

      • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 years ago

        Also, the delay would benefit Trump more significantly than other defendants with his campaign and potentially becoming president or being pardoned by the republican opponent if they win.

  • lynny@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    2 years ago

    Expect this to happen over and over. His legal team are going to stall any and all trials as much as possible, hoping that they can be dealt with after the presidential election.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    2 years ago

    There is all the reason for an expedited trial. This guy needs to be taken off the roads ASAP.

  • drturtle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    2 years ago

    If Trump wins the election, there won’t be a trial. He will try to pardon himself or have the DOJ to drop the case. I expect he will do everything to delay the trial until after the election.

    • lynny@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      2 years ago

      Not to imply Trump is at all similar, but Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times and even had the FBI tracking him.

      The idea that someone who is a convicted criminal or is being tried in a criminal case cannot participate in politics is a very dangerous precedent to set.

    • effingjoe@kbin.social
      4·
      2 years ago

      What in the world have we become?

      I in no way mean this to defend Trump, but being tried for a crime does not mean one is guilty of a crime. And at a very (very) abstract level, even being guilty of a crime does not make a person necessarily unfit for office.

      • aetrix@lemmy.world
        6·
        2 years ago

        I know you’re right. It just feels bad taking the high road when the accused has demonstrated he is manifestly unfit for office while also caught dead to rights under a mountain of publicly known evidence which includes his own admission of guilt.

        • effingjoe@kbin.social
          2·
          2 years ago

          Yes, in this specific instance, especially with this specific crime and these specific bits of evidence, it should be a slam dunk for anyone with any sense to refuse to support Trump.

          But, that could have been said in 2016, too. Trump didn’t just show up in 2015 when he started running for President, or even when he lead that super racist “birther” movement prior to that; he’s been a terrible person his entire life, and no one gets a full pass on voting for him, no matter which time they did it, as far as I’m concerned. People that support Trump, especially in 2023, don’t give two shits about whether he’s qualified for the job. It’s a cult of personality; nothing more. I’m only half joking when I suggest that if Trump died of natural causes in a month, he’d still have a good chance of winning the GOP nomination. His supporters just don’t care about consequences or reality. Whatever triggers the lizard-part of their brain is what they do.

          Sorry for the rant. haha

        • dismalnow@kbin.social
          1·
          2 years ago

          In his case, he’s been a turd in society’s punchbowl for 50 years.

          There’s mountains of court records, poor business decisions, and proven malfeasance… and that’s not counting two impeachments.

          No accounting for taste, I suppose.