Special counsel Jack Smith (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin), U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. Senate via AP), Donald Trump (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump on Monday asked the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case to give them two more weeks to respond to special counsel Jack Smith’s pretrial motions dealing with discovery, citing, among several reasons, a need to prepare for the fast-approaching New York hush-money trial date of March 25. What the filing did not say, however, is that the Trump defense team has separately moved to adjourn the state trial until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the “scope of the presidential immunity doctrine.”
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon previously set a deadline of Thursday, March 14, to submit replies on pending pretrial motions and set a hearing on the same morning, a move, among other scheduling moves, that seems to have led to the bottleneck of unresolved motions that Trump lawyers sought relief from on Monday.
Claiming that they “have no intention of causing unnecessary delay in these proceedings,” Trump attorneys asked for an extension until March 24 to respond on issues “regarding the scope of the prosecution team” and discovery. The defense said it was prepared to file replies on motions to dismiss the indictment based on the Presidential Records Act and Espionage Act “unconstitutional vagueness” in time for the March 14 hearing.
“The resolution of the discovery motions is very likely to require supplemental briefing regarding the pretrial motions,” the defense said. “Therefore, we respectfully submit that no actual delay or prejudice to the Office would result from the extensions we are seeking.”
Here’s why the defense lawyers want more time [emphases ours]:
The reasons for this request are that (1) the Defendants and counsel need to travel to Fort Pierce prior to March 14 in order to participate in the hearing, which is time we would otherwise use to prepare the other reply submissions; (2) President Trump and counsel need to spend time preparing for the oral argument, which is time we would otherwise use to prepare the other reply submissions; (3) President Trump and counsel are currently preparing for a trial in New York, New York that is scheduled to begin on March 25, 2024, and the need to simultaneously devote attention to that case and this matter has been necessitated in part by the discovery violations and strategic scheduling demands of the Special Counsel’s Office that have prejudiced President Trump in multiple respects; (4) on March 12, counsel for Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira are reviewing physical evidence possessed by the Office that is potentially relevant to their reply submissions; and (5) Defendant Nauta is in the process of conferring with the Office regarding access to materials relating to grand jury practices in the District of Columbia that are relevant to his reply in support of pending selective and vindictive prosecution motion.
Although it was not mentioned in the filing, Trump attorneys are simultaneously moving to adjourn Trump’s New York criminal trial until after SCOTUS decides Trump v. United States, a case scheduled for argument on April 25.
The New York filing, dated March 7 but first noticed on Monday, “respectfully submits that an adjournment of the trial is appropriate to await further guidance from the Supreme Court, which should facilitate the appropriate application of the presidential immunity doctrine in this case to the evidence the People intend to offer at trial.”
What state evidence is that? Trump lawyers called it evidence of a “fictitious so-called ‘pressure campaign”” against former fixer Michael Cohen in 2018 — while Trump was president.
This is one of Trump’s tweets that his lawyers want to keep from a jury, on the theory of immunity that posting it was an “official act” of his presidency.
It’s a tweet apparently showing Trump’s knowledge of the system of reimbursements at the center of his criminal charges. pic.twitter.com/1o3Yg5s2dZ
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) March 11, 2024
“Therefore, President Trump respectfully submits that an adjournment of the trial is appropriate to await further guidance from the Supreme Court, which should facilitate the appropriate application of the presidential immunity doctrine in this case to the evidence the People intend to offer at trial,” the motion to adjourn said. “Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, and consistent with the remand in Blassingame, the Court should hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to identify and preclude documentary and testimonial official-acts evidence based on presidential immunity.”
Both the Mar-a-Lago filing and New York filing bore defense attorney Todd Blanche’s signature.
Read the latest Mar-a-Lago request from Trump lawyers here and their motion to adjourn here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
