Judge Cannon notified Trump, Nauta, Special Counsel to be ready to discuss trial schedule tomorrow

[zuul]

Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby), MSNBC lelgal analyst:

In a paperless, just-issued order, Judge Aileen Cannon has notified Trump, Nauta, and the Special Counsel’s office to be prepared tomorrow to discuss something not on the official agenda for a normal CIPA hearing: the trial schedule. Specifically, they should be ready to discuss the government’s proposed trial schedule and related deadlines & any “particularized objections thereto” in light of the Speedy Trial Act, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the CIPA.

2:29 PM · Jul 17, 2023

Edited to add: This reinforces my suspicion she will set a new scheduling order -- and likely with some sort of trial date -- at or soon after tomorrow’s hearing. Stay tuned.

Link to tweet

[marble falls]

1. I really don't think she's stupid enough to give him what he wants to any degree. The press has ...

... done a good job of keeping her name and connection to TFG up front and publicized. Either way. Jack Smith has a plan and I trust him 100%.

[Johnny2X2X]

2. A key point already

Trump wants to delay until after the election, doesn't seem like Cannon will just agree to that.

[jimfields33]

8. She'll give him 4 months like she gave the special counsel

April 2024 will be the trial.

[PCIntern]

3. Perhaps she can give him until after the election of 2028

Just in case…😳

[gab13by13]

4. There is the Speedy Trial Act

so I assume she would be way out of bounds to grant Trump's request. The 70 days isn't always adhered to, but granting an indefinite date would be a bridge way too far.

We shall see tomorrow.

[malaise]

5. If she tries any shit

This will be moved vis the Appeals Court

[gratuitous]

6. Considering the defendant's non-response to the prosecutor's motion

The special prosecutor filed a motion to postpone Judge Cannon's proposed trial date in August, asking instead for trial beginning in December. The defendant's response simply asked for trial to begin sometime after January 1, 2025. As I recall, there wasn't a lot of detail from the defendant about why trial should be set that far out, and there wasn't a date certain requested. Today's order seems to be notice to the defendant and his attorneys that they'd better have their calendars with them tomorrow and be ready to discuss specific dates. I don't think "We can't go on that date because I have an early tee time" or "We can't go on that date, because I might want to have a rally in Sheboygan" are going to be acceptable excuses.

[moniss]

7. So if she denies

the request of the Orange Ruski the question becomes will his "lawyers" (directed by mastermind John Barron) appeal her decision? If they lose that appeal will they then try to go to the SC? Will the loving arms (as long as the check clears) of Cash and Carry Clarence then stay everything until the full SC can hear the appeal next term?

If Thomas the Tawdry gets a chance to do his "magic" then conceivably the decision in the case could be delayed until 6/24 and then scheduling could go forward from there but again all kinds of delay and motions could take this well past the election.

Maybe a legal beagle here could talk about whether Smith could or would want to sever the Nauta case and do them separately.

Smith indictments for J6 regarding the Orange Ruski would, I think, be filed in DC since that's where the criminal act was centered. Once again a legal beagle may have some thoughts on that as well.

I've been reading up on Brandenburg v Ohio which is the main SC ruling that still stands with regard to incitement and speech. A general description of that decision would seem to indicate that a person must have intent to speak,some forehand knowledge that the action they would advocate by speaking would be illegal and that it would be foreseeable that by the words spoken it would create a situation of imminent lawlessness. At least that's the understanding I get from reading.

So if we follow what we have seen reported about how Smith is proceeding it would seem he is taking a path to knock down any claim by the Orange Ruski that it was protected speech. It is reported that Smith is looking at the knowledge beforehand that the scheme wasn't legal and yet they plotted and planned for the speech to take place so that should satisfy those parts of Brandenburg. We already know from the J6 Committee testimony that the Orange Ruski had been advised of all of this beforehand and on the day in question we also know he was advised about people in his crowd being armed. He continued and gave the speech directing people to go to a specific place and telling them they needed to "fight like hell" in order to keep their country. So he knew it was illegal, he planned to speak to implement the illegal act and then he knowingly made an inflammatory speech to people he knew were armed, had been told they could be dangerous and then he aimed that at a specific target at a specific event in order to enact the lawlessness that they had planned previously. It seems to me that Smith would be successful in negating a free speech defense assuming a fair court. A hopeful assumption. I believe that Fanni Willis could use that track to also knock down any free speech defense.

A question from a strategy point that is concerning is whether filing lots of indictments in multiple cases might strengthen the argument for delay and appeals of pre-trial decisions in multiple jurisdictions by the Orange Ruski. I don't know but they might make the case that there is much legal spaghetti to be sorted out and try to run past the election that way.