Left: Former President Donald Trump, center, sits at the defense table at New York Supreme Court, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York City. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool, File); Right: Special counsel Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).
Special counsel Jack Smith urged the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case against former President Donald Trump not to give in to the latest efforts by the defense to further delay proceedings in a pointed motion filed late Monday.
On Monday morning, a defense attorney for the 45th president requested an additional two weeks to file pretrial discovery motions with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon by citing Trump’s need to prepare for his upcoming New York City-based hush-money trial — which is scheduled to begin later this month. Meanwhile, in a different motion docketed Monday but dated March 7, that same defense attorney, Todd Blanche, moved to adjourn the Empire State’s case against Trump until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity issues which are arguably implicated by some of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recently-filed pretrial motions.
“An extension of time such that they receive more than twice the time allotted by the Local Rule is unreasonable,” the motion in opposition reads. “The briefing schedule has been in place for months.”
Cannon previously set a deadline of Thursday, March 14, to submit replies on all of the pending pretrial motions. A hearing is also slated to occur that same morning that will address just some of the many pretrial issues that have consumed and serially delayed the case.
In their federal motion, Trump’s attorneys said they have “no intention of causing unnecessary delay in these proceedings,” and asked for an extension until March 24 to reply to certain motions filed by the government. The defense said it was prepared to file replies on motions to dismiss the indictment based on the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act the day before the March 14 hearing.
In the government’s terse opposition motion, and a footnote, Smith suggests Trump is trying the legal equivalent of the old army game.
“Only now, on the eve of the reply deadline, does the defense complain that it needs more time — mostly based on circumstances about which they have been aware throughout the pendency of their motions: the trial date in New York has been in place since 2022,” the motion reads. The corresponding footnote explains: “Trump has also sought to adjourn the New York trial.”
The former president’s bid to delay further still in the Sunshine State also cites some alleged difficulties being experienced by his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta, Trump’s longtime butler, and Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager.
“Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira are reviewing physical evidence possessed by the Office that is potentially relevant to their reply submissions,” the request to extend the deadlines reads. “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.”
Smith dismisses Nauta and De Oliveira’s concerns out of hand.
“[T]he evidence DeOliveira will inspect tomorrow has been available to them since the Government first provided them discovery,” the government’s opposition motion retorts. “Nauta fails to explain how any questions about grand jury practice in the District of Columbia could affect his reply briefing and why he has waited until now to seek this information.”
Trump’s earlier Monday filing also complains that in order to travel to Florida for the March 14 hearing, the defense is losing “time we would otherwise use to prepare the other reply submissions.”
Again, Smith argues that is not a valid basis to shift the deadlines.
“And the fact that the defense must travel to Florida for a hearing on Thursday is not unique to those teams and poses no cause for such delay,” the government’s motion concludes. “The Court should deny the defendants’ motion.”
