The circus of litigation triggered by the Trump Extended Family crime syndicate has referenced the right to a speedy trial in multiple contexts. When indictments were first issued in the documents case in Florida, questions about the timing of the actual trial referencing "speedy trials" arose because that District operates under so-called "rocket docket" rules which require the assigned judge to set an initial trial date no later than five months from the date of indictment. Even that goal comes with a GIANT caveat because while initial trial dates can be SET, they are immediately subjected to litigation which routinely pushes ACTUAL start dates well off into the future. However, the intent is to err on the side of inertia and get the parties to the litigation MOVING towards trial.
The primary motivation for rules attempting to accelerate trial activity is to ensure a defendant accused but not convicted doesn't sit in limbo without the chance for exoneration. Obviously, for defendants jailed prior to trial, the goal of ensuring a speedy trial is aimed at minimizing the amount of time a potentially innocent defendant is incarcerated. In other words, the primary motivation involves the rights of the ACCUSED.
However, the same speedy trial goals also serve the interests of any potential victims of the defendant (civil or criminal) and the larger public. If someone is accused of a crime and is truly "guilty", then those wronged have an interest in seeing whatever punishment is assigned meted out as quickly as possible, both as a response to the actual felon's actions and as notice to the larger public that such actions by others will also presumably be investigated, indicted, convicted and punished appropriately.
Of course, that's the historical thinking on speedy trials and justice in the real world.
In the parallel universe occupied by the Trump Extended Crime Family, platitudes about fair and speedy trials promoting justice and fairness have nothing in common with his criminal interests. In Trump-World, there is ZERO interest in a speedy trial in any of the pending cases. Any possible conviction or plea deal of any co-defendants in these cases PRIOR to the election of 2024 decreases his chances of winning the Republican primary and winning the Presidency and the ability to escape the federal charges and pressure forces in Georgia to drop state charges. It is in Trump's personal interest to delay EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of EVERY ONE of these cases against any of the defendants.
In Trump world, there is ZERO interest in a fair trial, for him and for any of his co-defendants. That is true to such an extent that the DOJ has identified situations where the facts at its disposal confirm there are parties in Trump's sphere who have conflicting legal interests who SHARE a counsel paid for by Trump who has directed them to do X when it is absolutely in their individual interest to do Y instead. The additional indictments brought against some of Trump's staff in Mar-a-Lago arose after the DOJ identified perjury on the part of Yuscil Taveras who was being represented by lawyer Stanley Woodward who was also representing Walt Nauta who was indicted up front with the rest. The physical evidence held by the government confirmed Taveras lied to investigators previously and instead provided testimony matching the other defendants.
In addressing this situation with the parties being investigated and their counsel, the DOJ was told by counsel that Taveras was sticking with his story. The DOJ knew at that point that any change in course by Taveras to tell the truth and mitigate his individual circumstances would further incriminate Trump, Nauta and others and thus his lawyer Woodward had a conflict of interest in representing clients with diverging legal interests.
THIS issue drove the filing Jack Smith attempted to file privately with Aileen Cannon's court -- an attempt to ensure this potential conflict of interest of the defendant's counsel was appropriate addressed to avoid the issue coming up later and triggering delays at a more critical phase of the trial and claims of defective counsel which would waste more of the DOJ's time (and the interests of We The People).
Of course, Cannon again demonstrated her lack of familiarity with criminal procedures and basic fairness by a) denying the private submission of the motion, b) instead requiring it be publicly addressed and c) further couching complaints from the defendants' counsel as her own questions about why information about defendants in a case now in HER court in Florida were being supplemented with information gleaned from grand jury activity in Washington DC.
That of course required Jack Smith to RESPOND to her in a public filing, a filing that further outlined her incompetence and lack of suitability to sit on any bench. His response not only explicitly outlined the conflict of interest of Stanley Woodward but disclosed the underlying fact that Taveras has now changed his testimony after finally getting new counsel and his new testimony further implicates Trump and Nauta on the obstruction of justice charges. Woodward is now attempting to claim that Taveras' testimony must now be banished from use in the trial, which of course would eliminate evidence supporting conviction of his clients.
Of course, Smith also had to explain to Cannon in writing that additional facts came from the Washington DC grand jury because Taveras perjured himself in front of that grand jury. That grand jury was hearing evidence in this case because the investigation STARTED in Washington, DC because that's where the document crimes BEGAN, by Trump removing the documents from the White House. He also had to instruct Cannon that while federal prosecutors must pick a venue to file an indictment that is appropriate for the location where a crime was committed, grand juries and prosecutors are free to consider evidence regardless of any geographic restriction.
We are only two months into this farce but it is clear Trump is creating a new book of criminal defense strategy that reflects everything he learned over his life from Fred Trump and Roy Cohn -- Screw your Employees/Contractors, Sue Everyone, Double Down on All Accusations, Settle Privately and Flood the Zone With **** -- and puts it on steroids. Atop the new strategy appear to be these keys:
- paralyze the system by committing as many crimes in as many jurisdictions as possible
- never pay your legal bills, ensuring you continue to attract only the most incompetent defense counsel possible
- if you're going to steal top-secret documents, mix them in with tens of thousands of pages of other documents so that prior to trial, you can claim the need to read ALL of them before a trial can start
- run a cult on the side and soak it for cash continually by operating a political action committee - it takes gobs of money to continue leading the lifestyle that attracts the next round of legal loser lawyers to replace the current crop as they quit because you're not paying them or they become indicted for being your prior lawyer
- flood each judge's docket with bogus motions written at an eighth grade reading level with a sixth grader's comprehension of criminal law
- ensure your counsel spends more time on TV than preparing for court to claim as many reasons for delay
- if you ever get the chance, appoint a potted plant to a judgeship in your new hometown district where you plan on committing some of your crimes -- you could win the docket lottery and have a potted plant that owes you assigned to your case
While Trump continues writing his book on thwarting justice, consider the REAL impact on justice these cases are having across the country. Think of the MONTHS of prosecutor time occupied by these charges that could have been focused on other pressing criminal issues facing the country. That is why these charges ARE now the most important issue facing these courts and the country. This sustained, organized plot to reject the results from the process lying at the core of a democracy is the most important case. If these defendants escape justice for this crime, the words behind our Constitution mean nothing and democracy will vanish under the surface along with the rule of law.
WTH
