Connect with us

ANALYSIS

‘I Am Far Too Busy to Be Prosecuted’: Legal Experts Mock Trump’s Request for Indefinite Suspension of Trial

Published

on

Some legal and national security experts were stunned when attorneys for Donald Trump filed a near-midnight motion requesting U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely delay setting a date for his trial in the classified documents case.

At 11:30 PM, just 30 minutes before the deadline, Trump’s attorneys told Judge Cannon, “there is most assuredly no reason for any expedited trial, and the ends of justice are best served by a continuance.”

Technically, Trump’s legal team of four attorneys are asking Cannon to deny the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s trial schedule, and withdraw her own schedule which includes pre-trial conference dates during which attorneys and the judge discuss critical details of the case.

In their overnight filing, Trump’s attorneys suggest that the trial is political, but also, because he is running for elected office against the sitting President of the United States, he is far too busy to deal with being a defendant.

READ MORE: Comer’s Missing FBI ‘Whistleblower’ and ‘Very Credible Witness on Biden Family Corruption’ Was Just Indicted

“President Trump is running for president of the United States and is currently the likely Republican Party nominee,” the motion reads. “This undertaking requires a tremendous amount of time and energy, and that effort will continue until the election on Nov. 5, 2024.”

Pointing to Trump’s co-defendant, Walt Nauta, they add: “Mr. Nauta’s job requires him to accompany President Trump during most campaign trips around the country. This schedule makes trial preparation with both of the Defendants challenging. Such preparation requires significant planning and time, making the current schedule untenable and counseling in favor of a continuance.”

They claim it will be difficult, and time-consuming, to seat an impartial jury, especially because of the presidential election.

The attorneys write, “even Department of Justice policy cautions against taking prosecutorial action for the purpose of affecting an election or helping a candidate or party.”

Donald Trump, it has been widely reported, announced he was running for president because he thought it would prevent him from being prosecuted. And The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, as recently as today, wrote: “Lawyers for Trump, whose advisers are blunt in private that they see winning the election is the key to making the case against him disappear, began the process of delaying the documents trial.”

READ MORE: Senate Democrats Announce Supreme Court Ethics Bill – Top Republican Immediately Declares It DOA

The New York Times, in that article co-authored by Haberman, adds that Trump’s “lawyers strongly hinted that they were going to fight the government during the pretrial litigation over classified material, a process that could take up significant amounts of time.”

“In general,” the lawyers’ motion reads, “the defendants believe there should simply be no ‘secret’ evidence, nor any facts concealed from public view relative to the prosecution of a leading presidential candidate by his political opponent.”

“Our democracy demands no less than full transparency,” they claim.

Trump’s attorneys also suggest they intend “to challenge some of the charges he is facing by arguing that the Presidential Records Act permitted Mr. Trump to take documents with him from the White House,” The Times reports. They also “suggested that they might raise ‘constitutional and statutory challenges’ to Mr. Smith’s authority as special counsel.”

In response to the news Trump is trying to delay the trial, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who is generally reserved in her commentary, overnight tweeted: “Shocker. Trump doesn’t want to ever go to trial.”

READ MORE: ‘You Know, It Is What It Is’: GOP Senator Responsible for Marines Having No Leader Shrugs Off National Security Concerns

Brad Moss, a top national security attorney, was even less reserved in his response to the news. He tweeted, “Criminal defendants in court today: Apologies, Your Honor, but I am far too busy to be prosecuted right now. I’m going to have to ask you to indefinitely postpone my trial.”

But Barb McQuade, also a former U.S. Attorney, appeared to have anticipated this move.

To no one’s surprise, Trump’s lawyers filed a brief late last night in documents case seeking delay in trial date,” she wrote Tuesday morning. “Judge Cannon has a lot of power here to keep the trial on track. What’s the over/under for a trial before the Nov 2024 election?”

“While the arguments that Trump makes are not only anathema to the Constitution,” Adam Cohen, vice chair of Lawyers for Good Government notes, “And also contrary to his ‘lock her up’ chants in 2016…Remember-he makes this motion to Judge Cannon…Who previously decided Trump should be held to a different standard than the rest of America.”

Meanwhile, Marcy Wheeler, a national security and civil liberties journalist, suggests Trump’s attorneys are attempting to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

“Trump literally got access to the docs he stole by stating, over and over, that there was no more important thing than protecting classified information. He promised voters he’d keep them safe. That’s how he won,” she reminds.

Pointing to the indictment, she adds:

Wheeler, in her Twitter thread, also heavily criticized The New York Times’ reporting, and issued a warning to journalists: “You don’t have to just repeat Trump’s claims about how an election prevents him from going to trial w/o noting that he GOT ELECTED in 2016 by insisting on the urgency of criminal prosecution for mishandling classified information.”

Read the tweets above or at this link.

Image: Hunter Crenian/Shutterstock

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

ANALYSIS

From Iowa to Georgia the Red Wall Is Cracking — and Trump Is the Wrecking Ball

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s historic unpopularity is taking a toll on Republican candidates, with once-solidly-red states showing deepening blue cracks as his Iran war, gas and food prices, inflation, and overall economic uncertainty take hold of voters.

The signs have been there: the massive “No Kings” protests, the breaks by once-devout MAGA allies, Fox News acknowledging that Trump is “underwater” with voters, the mass exodus of Republicans from Congress, historically low consumer sentiment, and, of course, the polls.

Trump’s approval rating has been characterized as lower than any modern-day president’s at this point in their term.

According to The Economist, Trump’s approval rating is at 37 percent, and his disapproval rating is at 56 percent.  That’s a net negative of 19 points.

It’s worse in the red state of Georgia, where Trump is 23 points underwater.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Greg Bluestein, 56 percent of voters in the Peach State disapprove of Trump’s handling of rising gas prices. 57 percent say the money spent on his Iran war is contributing to higher prices and uncertainty. And 53 percent disapprove of his handling of the Iran war.

READ MORE: ‘He Reported to Me in Detail’: Netanyahu’s Boast on Vance Fuels Blowback

The Cook Political Report’s Jessica Taylor reports that they have just moved the Georgia Senate race from Toss Up to Lean Democratic.

“Some of this is outside of GOP candidates’ control,” Taylor writes, “and Trump is hurting them so much right now on Iran/gas prices when voters uniformly say their top worry is the economy.”

She also reports that Cook Political has moved three other Senate races toward the Democrats: North Carolina (Toss Up to Lean Democratic), Ohio (Lean Republican to Toss Up), and Nebraska (Solid Republican to Lean Republican).

“Right now, we see the likeliest outcome is a 1 to 3 seat Democratic pickup – just short of 4 they need” to take control of the Senate majority, Taylor writes.

Democrats have high hopes in other states as well, including Alaska, where Trump is 12 points underwater;  Maine, where he is 25 points underwater; and Texas, where he is 19 points underwater.

And Iowa, where Trump is underwater by 14 points, according to The Economist.

“Iowa looks to be seriously in play for Democrats in November up and down the ballot, according to a new survey from a Democratic group that backs moderate candidates,” Politico reports.

Democrat Rob Sand is leading Republican Randy Feenstra in the Iowa governor’s race — by eight points, while Republicans hold “slim leads” in the Senate race.

The Republicans’ Senate Leadership Fund is expected to pour millions into Iowa, “making it one of five GOP-held states where they’ve made a major investment as they fight to keep the majority.”

Former Obama official Tommy Vietor notes that “Iowa really does look competitive this year. It’s a combination of Trump fatigue, economy/inflation, and tariffs crushing farmers. Dem pickup opportunities include: Governor, US Senate, three House races (dream big and its all four), and its WAY cheaper than other states.”

READ MORE: White House Fires Back After President’s Doctor Is Asked to Test Trump’s Mental Fitness

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

ANALYSIS

Fox News Makes Stunning Break From Trump

Published

on

Fox News has published a striking assessment of President Donald Trump’s political standing ahead of the midterms.

In a Friday article about the president’s firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the conservative outlet reported that other Cabinet officials could also be on the “chopping block” — and offered a blunt assessment: Trump is “saddled with underwater approval ratings and an unpopular war ahead of this year’s crucial midterm elections, when Republicans are working to hold onto their slim House and Senate majorities.”

Last month, Fox News acknowledged that the Republican Party is “underwater” with voters, while reporting that Democrats had sunk to a “new low.” Fox News rarely applies the term “underwater” to Republicans, a search of the outlet’s website revealed.

On Wednesday, Fox News reported that “polls indicate” the war in Iran is “unpopular with many Americans, and a surge in gas prices as a direct result of the fighting have triggered a further slide in Trump’s standing in public opinion surveys.”

READ MORE: ‘Darker Clouds’: Experts Warn the Unemployment Drop Is a Warning Sign

That report noted at the top that “Trump stands at 41% approval and 59% disapproval in the most recent Fox News national poll.”

“The political implications are clear,” the report added. “The strikes on Iran and the erosion of the president’s approval ratings are warning signs for the GOP as Republicans ramp up to defend their slim House and Senate majorities in this autumn’s midterm elections.”

It also added that “Trump’s base remains extremely supportive of the president and the war,” and that “much of the slippage” is coming from “non-MAGA Republicans.”

Friday’s blunt Fox News language comes one day after Mediaite’s Colby Hall wrote an opinion piece about the Fox News channel, titled: “Fox News Viewers Have No Clue Trump’s Approval Rating Has Cratered.”

“President Donald Trump is currently enduring the most significant and sustained approval rating decline of his presidency, and the most-watched news network in America is virtually ignoring it,” Hall wrote.

READ MORE: ‘Come Personally to His Aid’: Group Warns Trump Could Install Two Loyalists on SCOTUS

Image via Reuters

 

 

Continue Reading

ANALYSIS

House Republicans Quietly Slip Anti-LGBTQ ‘Religious Freedom’ Clause Into Funding Bill

Published

on

House Republicans have inserted anti-LGBTQ language into a $66 billion must-pass funding bill for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, effectively granting civil immunity under federal law to individuals and organizations that discriminate against same-sex couples—by citing a religious or moral belief that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. It also bans the federal government from taking a range of actions against those who hold and act on anti-same-sex marriage beliefs.

Section 544 bans the use of federal funds to take any “discriminatory action” against someone who cites their “sincerely held religious belief” or “moral  conviction” that marriage is only “a union of one man and one woman.”

A portion of the provision exactly matches language U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) urged the House Appropriations Committee to include in 2023 legislation. Rep. Roy cited praise from anti-LGBTQ hate group leader Tony Perkins and other anti-LGBTQ activists in his press release urging inclusion of the amendment in a 2023 bill. It is not known who drafted or approved the current 2025 provision.

READ MORE: ‘Absolutely Incredible’: Dr. Oz Slammed for Telling Medicaid Users to ‘Prove You Matter’

Journalist Jamie Dupree, who writes Regular Order at Substack, first reported on the provision in the DHS funding bill.

The language could prohibit the government from withholding federal funds from a federally-funded religious school that fired a teacher who supports same-sex marriage. It could block the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of organizations that promote the belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman. It could ban the federal government from taking action against a hospital that receives federal funds if it refused certain services in some cases.

While the language is not found in The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, some of the core principles in Section 544 echo its recommendations.

Project 2025 calls on the federal government to “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family,” and “Provide robust protections for religious employers,” while it denounces “the bullying LGBTQ+ agenda.”

READ MORE: ‘He. Is. Lying.’: GOP Senator Ripped for Spinning Medicaid Cuts as ‘Transitioning’

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.