Federal Judge Says Jack Smith’s Proposal in Trump Case Is ‘Unrealistic’

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has not ruled on whether the federal Trump classified documents trial should be rescheduled, but she described some of the proposals by special counsel Jack Smith’s team as “unrealistic,” signaling a possible win for the former president.

In court documents submitted this week, federal prosecutors wrote the trial should start on July 8. Former President Donald Trump was charged with dozens of counts that he allegedly illegally retained classified documents at his Florida residence and obstructed justice, among other counts.

Federal prosecutor Jay Bratt told the court that “I think the parties agree on is that the case can be tried this summer,” according to court reporters. However, the judge described some of the proposals from the Smith team to be “unrealistic.”

At another point, the judge noted that President Trump’s trial schedule and other cases, including a New York City trial that is slated to start this month, should be considered. She added that the former president has the right to appear at court hearings and appear during the trial.

“That has to come into the equation, to some extent, on scheduling,” she said, according to reporters in the court. His March 25 New York City trial regarding allegations that he falsified business records is expected to last six weeks.

The judge said there needs to be “some space” in the schedule before the trial to “allow for flexibility” around how classified materials at the center of the case should be handled.

Trump Lawyers Speak

Lawyers for President Trump, meanwhile, argued to Judge Cannon that prosecutors’ July 8 date is “unworkable” and that the trial should start after the November presidential election, suggesting it would be “unfair” to voters due to his status.

Related Stories

His lawyers previously said in court papers that it should be postponed after the election because he is the leading Republican candidate and will likely be the GOP nominee.

“As the leading candidate in the 2024 election, President Trump strongly asserts that a fair trial cannot be conducted this year in a manner consistent with the Constitution, which affords President Trump a Sixth Amendment right to be present and to participate in these proceedings” as well as “a First Amendment right that he shares with the American people to engage in campaign speech,” they wrote previously in court papers submitted to the court.

Another Trump attorney, Todd Blanche, proposed that the trial should start no earlier than August because it may damage President Trump’s election chances.

“The campaign is in full swing” by September, he noted. Even without the 2024 election looming, the defense team would require more time to prepare, he told the judge.

“If there were no election … we still wouldn’t be ready for this trial” before November, the attorneys said. “There’s no reason this trial can’t start until late November,” he added.

The trial has a tentative starting date of May 20, but Judge Cannon has, on multiple occasions, signaled that it would be pushed back.

It has taken on added significance in light of the uncertainty surrounding a separate federal case in Washington charging President Trump over his activity after the 2020 presidential election. And the Supreme Court said this week that it would hear arguments in late April on whether the former as a former president is immune from prosecution, leaving it unclear whether that case might reach trial before the November election.

If the Florida classified documents case were to be postponed until after the election, and if the Washington election subversion case does not take place this year, that would mean voters would head to the polls without two blockbuster federal prosecutions—both alleging felony charges—being resolved by a jury.

Trump faces 40 felony counts in Florida that accuse him of willfully retaining after he left the White House dozens of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and then rebuffing government demands to give them back.

Prosecutors in recent court filings have stressed the scope of criminal conduct that they say they expect to prove at trial, saying this week in one brief that “there has never been a case in American history in which a former official has engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s.”

The former president has pleaded not guilty to the charges, maintaining that he is being unfairly targeted by the federal government and part of a longstanding witch hunt to imperil his political chances. Last week, his lawyers asked Judge Cannon to dismiss the case, saying that he has presidential immunity and that Mr. Smith was improperly appointed by the Department of Justice.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.