'Unreasonable': Jack Smith tersely scorches Trump for trying to stall Mar-a-Lago prosecution over upcoming NYC trial

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Law & Crime

Mar 11th, 2024, 6:28 pm


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.


Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/unreasonable-jack-smith-tersely-scorches-trump-for-trying-to-stall-mar-a-lago-prosecution-over-upcoming-nyc-trial/

[republianmushroom]

1. Believe the puppet granted a 10 day extension.

Cannon 'quickly' grants Trump lawyers extension to 'reply to their own motions to dismiss': report

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cannon-quickly-grants-trump-lawyers-extension-to-reply-to-their-own-motions-to-dismiss-report/ar-BB1jJeTe

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Naturally

and thanks for the heads-up. The M$M is burying that story in the "Hur" nonsense but I did find another source within LBN criteria timeframe.

[Justice matters.]

3. WTF happened to the so-called "speedy trial" rule in National Security related cases?

Why isn't an appeal to the 11th circuit filed in order to "remind" I-LEAN QANON of that rule or get her out of the way of WE THE PEOPLE's NATIONAL SECURITY???

[onenote]

5. Where do you find this "so-called" speedy trial rule in National Security related cases?

The Speedy Trial rule is intended to protect the defendant. Where the delay is the result of requests by the defendant, it's difficult to find a violation.

Moreover, there is no special rule singling out national security related cases for a "speedier" trial than other trials. In fact, it's the opposite. The courts have recognized that the speedy trial rule is not violated when the government delays going forward with a case because it has national security implications.

If the "speedy trial" theory you reference was a real thing, wouldn't have Smith cited it in his opposition to the extension?

Here's a link to the latest "Speedy Trial" report filed by the Special Counsel. You'll note that there is no reference to any special requirement due to this being a case related to national security. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.341.0.pdf

[prodigitalson]

4. 'unreasonable' is a sick burn?

headline writing has been one of the biggest victims of the internet age. hyperbole rules the day when it comes to headline even on sites that are otherwise good. Meidas Touch comes to mind.

[onenote]

6. +1. Newsweek is similarly guilty.

In their story about the extension, they referred to Smith's "intense" opposition to the extension. It was a pretty cut and dried opposition, seven sentences long.