The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Trump Documents Trial Date Set for May
Judge Cannon made her ruling. Trump wanted the trial to be postponed indefinitely, or at least to begin sometime after the 2024 election. Jack Smith wanted the trial to begin in December. Cannon seemed to split the difference and set it to begin in May.
That puts the trial squarely in the heat of the Election year. With that trial, and others, and the campaign, Trump is going to be a buy man. Let's see how long Trump continues to sing Cannon's praises now that she planted his felony criminal trial smack-dab in the middle of his election year.
Judge Cannon made her ruling. Trump wanted the trial to be postponed indefinitely, or at least to begin sometime after the 2024 election. Jack Smith wanted the trial to begin in December. Cannon seemed to split the difference and set it to begin in May.
That puts the trial squarely in the heat of the Election year. With that trial, and others, and the campaign, Trump is going to be a buy man. Let's see how long Trump continues to sing Cannon's praises now that she planted his felony criminal trial smack-dab in the middle of his election year.
Last edited:
All true. But this is an incident years ago. It's not the full story. The full story also includes her periods of sobriety where good judgement and integrity were demonstrated. Regarding the question at hand, the indictment she, her office and the grand jury worked to produce seems to be a valid document and the charges are very real to those accused. Her drunken behavior at a football game years ago will have no impact on how this trial proceeds.
Last edited:
You are correct. I realized that after I posted, but I have been busy and unable to return to EO to make the correction. My bad.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Much like you.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
And it also keeps trump in the spotlight with free public relations.
You say “years ago”. The first one happened at the football game a year and nine months ago and the second one where she drank alcohol in public occurred a year and four months ago. For someone that is an alcoholic, does that display good judgement? I say no.
They're mentally not in a good place. Their behavior is erratic, thought processes become difficult, and their judgement is compromised.
Some worry that if Trump succeeds in delaying his classified documents trial until after the election, he may win and then use the powers of the presidency to get himself off the hook.
I do not share that concern. A Trump critic on Twitter put it nicely.
"I hope Judge Cannon treats Trump like any other criminal defendant. But if she grants future delays that move the trial to after the presidential election, then the election becomes a referendum on whether Trump faces trial. That would cause a massive blue wave, dwarfing 2018."
While there is a high probability Trump will be the Republican Party nominee for president. I give it a ZERO chance that he will win the general election. With or without a trial delay, zero chance.
Judge Cannon Tells Trump No, No, No.
In her ruling made yesterday, Judge Cannon did not use these words exactly but the practical effects of the ruling are:
In her ruling made yesterday, Judge Cannon did not use these words exactly but the practical effects of the ruling are:
- No, Trump cannot suspend or postpone this felony criminal trial until after the election. The trial date is set for May.
- No, Trump does not have special status and he will receive no special consideration because he is a candidate for president. He is a private citizen with no special status, and he will be treated as such by this court, and his political calendar is not a factor regarding this case.
- No, this is not a baseless witch hunt as Trump has suggested. The indictment is legitimate and it will be treated as such by this court.
Last edited:
The New York Times is Warming to Judge Cannon
If Trump supporters had hopes that Trump's classified documents problems would be over now that Trump-appointed Judge Cannon has been assigned to the case, those hopes are fading fast. The New York Times, perhaps the most influential liberal news organization of them all, said this about Cannon yesterday:
"Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a previously obscure Trump judicial appointee, has been viewed with incredulity by much of the legal establishment ever since she issued a ruling temporarily halting the federal investigation into the former president’s handling of classified documents. After a conservative appeals court slapped her down, Democrats said she was either incompetent or some kind of black-robed Trojan horse for the MAGA movement.
"On Friday morning, that view began to change.
"In a ruling that set a start date for the documents trial on May 20, 2024 — splitting the difference between prosecutors who wanted the trial to begin in December and a Trump team that pushed for a date after next year’s election — Judge Cannon showed, for now, that she is the jurist her defenders have described: a level-headed and mostly ordinary conservative judge not beholden to the man who appointed her. ..."
"Most of all, Judge Cannon made clear her preference that the trial be put on the docket sooner rather than later. 'I don’t want to have delays,' she warned the defense team, [emphasis mine] then concluded by promising to issue a ruling “promptly.” Less than 72 hours later, she set the May trial date,..." (Source)
If Trump supporters had hopes that Trump's classified documents problems would be over now that Trump-appointed Judge Cannon has been assigned to the case, those hopes are fading fast. The New York Times, perhaps the most influential liberal news organization of them all, said this about Cannon yesterday:
"Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a previously obscure Trump judicial appointee, has been viewed with incredulity by much of the legal establishment ever since she issued a ruling temporarily halting the federal investigation into the former president’s handling of classified documents. After a conservative appeals court slapped her down, Democrats said she was either incompetent or some kind of black-robed Trojan horse for the MAGA movement.
"On Friday morning, that view began to change.
"In a ruling that set a start date for the documents trial on May 20, 2024 — splitting the difference between prosecutors who wanted the trial to begin in December and a Trump team that pushed for a date after next year’s election — Judge Cannon showed, for now, that she is the jurist her defenders have described: a level-headed and mostly ordinary conservative judge not beholden to the man who appointed her. ..."
"Most of all, Judge Cannon made clear her preference that the trial be put on the docket sooner rather than later. 'I don’t want to have delays,' she warned the defense team, [emphasis mine] then concluded by promising to issue a ruling “promptly.” Less than 72 hours later, she set the May trial date,..." (Source)
Last edited:
Somehow, Cannon's ruling does not feel like a "major setback."
The DOJ is not complaining.
The New York Times is warming to Cannon.
The expected dozen or so pretrial motions will begin soon. Some of these are required to happen before the trail can begin.
As felony criminal trials go, this one is nicely underway, and Cannon told the defense directly, "I don't want to have any delays."
Yes, DOJ wanted a December trial date. It got a May date instead. So, if you wish, that can be characterized as a "major setback."
But if you say that about DOJ, you must also say it about Trump. Trump wanted the trial to be postponed indefinitely or at least not held until after the election. He did not get what he wanted. He got the same May date DOJ did. If the May date is a Major setback in the DOJ's "crusade," it's also a major setback in Trump's.
The DOJ is not complaining.
The New York Times is warming to Cannon.
The expected dozen or so pretrial motions will begin soon. Some of these are required to happen before the trail can begin.
As felony criminal trials go, this one is nicely underway, and Cannon told the defense directly, "I don't want to have any delays."
Yes, DOJ wanted a December trial date. It got a May date instead. So, if you wish, that can be characterized as a "major setback."
But if you say that about DOJ, you must also say it about Trump. Trump wanted the trial to be postponed indefinitely or at least not held until after the election. He did not get what he wanted. He got the same May date DOJ did. If the May date is a Major setback in the DOJ's "crusade," it's also a major setback in Trump's.
Last edited:
The speedy trial right is for the defendant. They also enjoy the deference to defend themselves with adequate time and preparation. And if that is needed, the delay should be granted.