In a late-night filing Monday, Donald Trump’s attorneys pushed for his trial in the federal classified documents case to be delayed until after the 2024 election. The court filing, submitted on behalf of Trump and his co-defendant, Walt Nauta, reads: “Proceeding to trial during the pendency of a Presidential election cycle wherein opposing candidates are effectively (if not literally) directly adverse to one another in this action will create extraordinary challenges in the jury selection process and limit the Defendants’ ability to secure a fair and impartial adjudication.”
The point of waiting until after the election isn’t to get a fair trial; it is to kill the trial.
In other words, the Trump team is suggesting that its clients won’t be able to get a fair trial and so the only option here is to push the trial until after the election. What the Trump team isn’t saying is that if Trump wins next year and then uses the levers of government at his disposal, he could push to absolve himself of any and all accountability. Maybe he pardons himself. Maybe the 25th Amendment is invoked and the vice president takes over and pardons him. Maybe Trump relies on a corrupt attorney general to scuttle the Justice Department’s own case against him.
Are these options all legally dubious? Of course. But then again, so was trying to get the vice president to unilaterally determine the winner of the 2020 election, and that sure didn’t deter Trump. Whatever avenue he takes, the overarching strategy is clear: The point of waiting until after the election isn’t to get a fair trial; it is to kill the trial.
Clearly, there’s no way for us to know whether the judge presiding over this case, Aileen Cannon, will rule in Trump’s favor or not. But I would offer that if she did opt to grant the Trump team this request, the corruption would be astounding. It would be a gift to Trump so obvious that she’d practically have no choice but to deliver it with a bow.
Cannon had claimed in the lead-up to this trial that Trump deserved special treatment, saying, “As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own.” In other words, no one is above the law … except, apparently, when Judge Cannon decides that a former president is.








