Special counsel Jack Smith has proposed taking the case to trial early next year, while Trump's lawyers argued that it should be held in spring of 2026.

The federal judge presiding over Donald Trump’s criminal election interference case shut down a bid by the former president to set his trial more than two-and-a-half years away.

“This case is not going to trial in 2026,” Judge Tanya Chutkan said in a hearing Monday morning in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., NBC News reported.

But the judge also said that she would reject a proposal by federal prosecutors to bring the case to trial in less than five months.

  • Matt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    108·
    10 months ago

    “Trump has already lashed out at the special counsel … for asking for a trial date that would likely overlap with the Iowa caucuses” Do you mean you’d have to rearrange your schedule to accommodate a criminal trial due to your own actions?!? shockedpikatchu.jpg

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    1083·
    10 months ago

    The ridiculous notion is that such things are entertained for anyone by our courts, but often are for “important” (possessing capital means) people.

    Sure you’re implicated in serious crimes, but the justice system will take your affluent schedule into consideration!

    Watch a street dealer, aka a low income criminal ask to have their trial delayed by 3 years through a public defender and judge all but dictating they take a plea “deal” that only makes the court’s life easier.

    We crow about being a “developed, first world, wealthy nation” but just like the utter ruins of our K-12 system and our collapsing infrastructure, our pay to play justice system makes us anything but.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      353·
      10 months ago

      As much freedom as you can afford.

      Law applied unequally means those in privilege will flaunt it and those still wanting, correctly, have no respect for it.

      Fuck the law. Fuck the judges. Fuck the lawyers. Fuck the police. Might equals right in America. The winners will, and currently are, rewriting the histories to absolve them and their ancestors any wrongdoing.

      Stop acting like there’s some kind of decorum to uphold. If only one side is upholding it, news flash, it doesn’t exist. You’re just allowing yourself to be outmaneuvered. While any of y’all are up there on the high road, look down and witness the cruelty you arent protecting against. Keep clutching them pearls, cuz every minute more of us are being murdered by those sworn to protect and serve, or medicines that demand the culmination of your entire life’s work. The law ≠ morality. This immoral, institutionalized, embodiment of corruption we’re in can be summed up with this fact. Footage of whatever crime you are accused of, from police cams, citizens dash cams, private business security cams, the state will leverage it’s power to use against you - but that power will actively be used against you if it exonerates you

      So what I’m saying, is if your toes are dipped into the criminal courts, there is absolutely zero incentive to not go full cartel. Just wear a suit, sponsor a little league team, donate to both parties, the mayor and the police union and remember to let your obstacles well enough for an open casket, have some class after all, and you’ll never see the inside of a cell.

      Under a government that imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison - Thoreau

    • nachommk@lemmy.world
      12·
      10 months ago

      These are state level charges, right? If he won reelection for president he could not pardon a state level conviction. Only the governor of a state can do that, which is still likely. What moving the trial would do is create a conflict for sentencing a sitting president.

      • Telescreen@lemmynsfw.com
        16·
        10 months ago

        This is the guy who said he could declassify documents using his mind. Whether it’s legal or not, he’ll say he pardoned himself and his legion of terrorists will use that as justification to continue to act like they’re the good guys.

        Incidentally, at least for the Georgia charges not even the governor can pardon him.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        11·
        10 months ago

        This is a federal trial.

        And while some governors can pardon convictions, the governor of Georgia cannot. There is a Georgia state board that can issue a pardon, but only after a sentence has been served.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          5·
          10 months ago

          Isn’t it insane event there are so many concurrent trials Etc going on state and federal for a former president that it’s genuinely hard to keep track of them all. And his cult are ready to elect him again.

        • nachommk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          10 months ago

          Oh, my fault. You’re right. This is my mistake for getting confused about multiple trials.

          • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
            7·
            10 months ago

            Pretty crazy that it’s hard to keep a former president’s federal crimes trials straight. And the guy is still leading by far in the Republican primaries. Less than ten years ago, Howard Dean’s campaign basically ended because people thought his enthusiastic yell was weird. Now we have a mess of people saying they’d still vote for Trump even if he’s found guilty. It blows my mind.

      • doggle@lemmy.world
        61·
        10 months ago

        The judge referenced in this article is for one of the federal trials. He does have charges in Georgia that he wouldn’t be able to pardon, but who knows how that would go down… leading the nation from a Fulton country correctional facility doesn’t sound like fun.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      121·
      10 months ago

      We should not entertain the notion that anyone has to power to self-pardon.

      I mean yes, he’ll try it if he’s elected, and his pet Supreme Court judges may even allow it, but the very notion is absurd.

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    445·
    10 months ago

    But the judge also said that she would reject a proposal by federal prosecutors to bring the case to trial in less than five months.

    There’s nothing unreasonable about that. There’s too many witnesses to interview and too much evidence to review otherwise. Last thing anybody wants is to railroad the trial.

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      292·
      10 months ago

      What gives you that idea? 5 months is plenty of time. He performed a failed coup on the US, we have it on video.

      Edit: The judge gave them a month or two extra, it’s fine. Non-televised which is a shame.

      A federal judge on Monday set a March 4, 2024, trial date in former President Donald Trump’s criminal election interference case, putting the top Republican presidential candidate on trial in Washington, D.C., seven months before the 2024 general election.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        52·
        10 months ago

        It’s not a hand to hand drug transaction or a traffic violation. A vigorous defense for a criminal conspiracy needs time. It certainly doesn’t need two years, but we’re also not at the point of suspending the rule of law and putting folks against the wall.

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          101·
          10 months ago

          He was at the point of trying to be king and all he has to do is stop firing his lawyers, lol. 5 months is fine, 7 months is the next best thing.

        • CobblerScholar@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          It’s important that the system is followed. It demonstrates that even the worst criminals will be treated fairly and equitably under the law. In a very real sense the institutions that we have spent 250 years perfecting are being tested themselves

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      230·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, both parties are playing games with the trial dates. Prosecution wants to rush a date so that it will interfere with campaigning while the Defense wants a date so far in the future that practically speaking it will no longer matter.

      • krayj@sh.itjust.works
        23·
        10 months ago

        Prosecution wants to rush a date so that it will interfere with campaigning

        The prosecution has already done their work. They are ready to prosecute the case and present evidence. Delays allow for eye-witnesses’ memories to become less clear and opens them up to challenges on cross-examination. Wanting a speedy trial has nothing to do with political agenda and everything to do with wanting to present the most accurate facts possible.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        21·
        10 months ago

        So prosecution always wants a faster date, because it increases the chances witnesses stay consistent and nothing surprising happens. They bring the case when they think they can win it, so they’re generally always ready to go immediately. I wouldn’t call it political.

  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
    361·
    10 months ago

    This trial is now scheduled to start on March 4, so the defense has about six months to prepare.

    While you have your calendar open, the New York hush money trial is set for March 25 and the federal stolen documents trial is set for May 20. The Georgia election interference trial date is not yet set.

  • cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works
    13·
    10 months ago

    Excellent. He’s had enough delays. Five months is more than enough time as he’ll have had 3 years to prepare for a trial such as this.