Judge Aileen Cannon finally ruled on the request by Team Trump to delay his federal trial on National Security document possession and DECLINED the request. Sort of.
Her ruling can be viewed at this link:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.215.0.pdfThus sayeth the oracle of Fort Pierce:
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial, currently set for the two-week period commencing on May 20, 2024, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to be considered at a scheduling conference on March 1, 2024, following the initial set of pre-trial and CIPA steps in this proceeding as outlined below.
Strictly speaking, that wording only means the date isn't being explicitly slipped NOW to some point beyond May 20, 2024. It means roughly 80 days before the currently scheduled start date, she will entertain additional arguments at that time from both parties. At this point, the inscrutability of her legal logic makes it impossible to deduce what her possible intent is behind this ruling.
1) Is it to delay recognition by those wanting the matter resolved that she WILL in fact delay the trial?
2) Is it to delay recognition by those who want it DELAYED that she has decided NOT to delay it, thereby delaying the onset of their wrath?
3) Is it because she is genuinely stumped / overwhelmed by the facts and logistics of this case and needs another 110 days to ponder this issue?
It could very well be #3. Her decision published November 10, 2023 states the following:
All told, by latest numbers, the Court is advised that this case involves approximately 1.3 million pages of unclassified discovery, approximately 60 terabytes of closed circuit television footage spanning at least nine months, and 5,500 pages of classified discovery. The volume and timing of these materials has outpaced initial estimates and required supplementation, both in the normal course and also to correct inadvertent omissions in the Special Counsel’s productions. And, as far as classified discovery is concerned, the full scope of such information, including discovery directly pertinent to the substantive counts in the Superseding Indictment, was made available to defense counsel only recently on October 17, 2023, further contributing to delays in defense review. In the meantime, the Litigation Security Group remains in the process of managing various issues associated with document review in this case, including read-and-return requirements that have presented unique logistical hurdles not commonly present in CIPA litigation. And finally, counsel for Defendant Nauta did not receive final clearance to review classified discovery until October 25, 2023, precluding him from any classified discovery review.
Clearly, as a judge who established a strict TWO HUNDRED WORD LIMIT on summaries of responses returned to the court by prosecutors and defense counsel, these would appear to be a staggering amount of material requiring review.
Only they DON'T require manual, exhaustive review. The non-secured documents have all likely been provided electronically using modern "discovery management" software that essentially indexes all of the content with a private Google-like search engine, allowing ANYTHING to be found instantly by keyword, document date, etc. Prosecutors have to make their case to a jury and there is zero incentive for the prosecution to address even more than 50 such documents. Anything more will likely blur the point of their case and annoy jurors.
The 5,500 pages of highly confidential documents might not be electronically indexed but no one on either the defendant's legal team or the prosecution has to be intimately familiar with each document and the contextual nuances of the contents therein. The crimes involved here have nothing to do with the specific facts or policies referenced in each document, only that A) they were classified, B) Trump had no right to possess them, C) Trump physically mishandled them by keeping them outside government approved security repositories like the ball room and guest bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. The only "processing" of these documents required of either legal team is to review them enough to recognize they ARE government documents and HAVE the claimed security designations. The trial will not hinge on what was stated in paragraph two of one of these documents.
No one has to review all 60 terabytes of closed circuit surveilance video, either. The government has already identified specific dates and times where Trump staffers were recorded moving boxes in and moving boxes out. Unless the defense wants to argue there is OTHER video minutes or hours prior that shows different content in those boxes, there are no other stretches of video that will help the defense and thus there is no value in them spending time reviewing it.
Regarding the delays encountered by defendant Walt Nauta in obtaining counsel, that really shouldn't be a claim for his lawyer needing more time with these documents. Nauta is not being accused of READING these documents, either while they were stored or while in the process of deciding how and when to move them. He is simply charged with MOVING the boxes that had confidential information at issue at the direction of his boss. I'm pretty sure none of the close circuit television feed shows him cautiously opening each box, one a time, and deciding to leave certain boxes behind. Therefore, his defense does not hinge upon the CONTENT of the documents. His guilt or innocense is again solely dependent upon the actual classification of the documents and his actions to move them from A to B when he was likely told of their sensitive content.
Cannon seems unable to pull out of the weeds and details and "abstract up" about the true nature of the crimes being alleged and the facts in the case required to prove those charges or defend against them. That's not merely the sign of a newbie judge getting their sea legs in court. That's a sign of a judge who is truly at sea, legally and logically speaking.
WTH
