This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/01/trump-mar-a-lago-documents-case

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trump to attend key hearing in Mar-a-Lago classified documents case Trump attends key hearing in Mar-a-Lago classified documents case
(about 5 hours later)
Judge Aileen Cannon could set new trial date and allow ex-president to make public identities of government investigators Judge Aileen Cannon weighs when to set new trial date in case that is now many months delayed
Donald Trump is expected to attend a major court hearing on Friday in the criminal case over his retention of classified documents, during which a federal judge could set a new trial date and decide whether to allow the former president to make public the identity of government investigators. Donald Trump attended a major court hearing on Friday in the criminal case over his retention of classified documents, some allegedly relating to US nuclear secrets and others stored in his bathroom, as a federal judge weighed when to set a new trial date in a case that is now many months delayed.
The hearing – scheduled to start at 10am and split into two sessions in federal district court in Fort Pierce, Florida – could see the US district judge Aileen Cannon make a series of rulings that could alter the trajectory of the case. Arriving at federal district court in Fort Pierce, Florida, on Friday morning, the motorcade carrying the former president and all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee passed supporters waving flags and campaign banners, as members of the media and law enforcement officers looked on.
Cannon’s main priority is expected to be setting a new trial date, after extended legal battles between Trump and prosecutors over issues related to classified discovery caused proceedings to run roughly four months behind schedule and made the original May trial date untenable. Trump has dominated the Republican presidential primary despite facing 91 criminal charges – 40 in the classified documents case – as well as multimillion-dollar civil defeats and attempts to remove him from the ballot for inciting the January 6 insurrection.
Whether the judge will set a trial date in a ruling from the bench, or write an order later, remains unclear. Also uncertain is whether the judge decides to adopt a schedule suggested by Trump that culminates in an August trial, or a schedule suggested by prosecutors that culminates in a July trial. His legal schedule is as busy as his campaign. Also on Friday, closing arguments were due in Georgia in Trump’s attempt to disqualify Fani Willis, the district attorney of Fulton county, from the state election subversion case which produced 13 charges.
Cannon has indicated that the morning part of the hearing will address Trump’s request that prosecutors provide them with reams of additional information that they believe will help mount a defense against the sweeping indictment last year charging Trump with violating the Espionage Act. The Florida hearing was scheduled to be split into two sessions, with restrictions on communications and no broadcast cameras allowed. It could see the US district judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, make rulings that could alter the trajectory of the case.
The 68-page filing submitted by Trump, known as a motion to compel discovery, at times read more like a list of political grievances that accused the US intelligence community of harboring bias in its classification assessments and purported collusion between prosecutors and the Biden White House. Cannon’s main priority was expected to be setting a new trial date, after extended legal battles between Trump and prosecutors under the special counsel Jack Smith over issues related to classified discovery caused proceedings to run roughly four months behind schedule and made the original May trial date untenable.
But it was still a substantive motion that sought information about bias inside the intelligence agencies, so that Trump could challenge their national security assessments of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, and information about potential political bias among prosecutors. Whether Cannon would set a trial date in a ruling from the bench, or write an order later, was unclear. Also uncertain was whether Cannon would decide to adopt a schedule suggested by Trump that would culminate in an August trial, or a schedule suggested by prosecutors, culminating in a July trial.
The Trump lawyers also asked the judge to force prosecutors for information about their interest in Stanley Woodward, the lawyer for Trump valet and co-defendant Walt Nauta, who complained during the criminal investigation that he faced improper pressure to have Nauta cooperate against Trump. The one thing I think the parties agree on is that the case can be tried this summer,” said Jay Bratt, a prosecutor from Smith’s office, to Cannon in court, according to CNN. It added that Cannon replied that some aspects of prosecutors’ proposed schedule were “unrealistic”.
In the afternoon part of the hearing, Cannon will focus on prosecutors’ request that she reconsider her ruling that they complained would allow Trump to make FBI documents produced during discovery public, revealing names of potential trial witnesses. The judge was also reported to have said she would consider Trump’s other trials – including the one over hush-money payments to an adult film star who claimed an affair, which is due to start in New York this month – given his right to attend each in person.
The motion from prosecutors argued Cannon applied the wrong legal standard when she allowed Trump to file exhibits without redactions. If Cannon did not reverse her decision, the filing said, prosecutors were prepared to appeal to force the reversal. Delay is a major part of Trump’s tactics in all his criminal and civil cases as he seeks to regain the White House. CNN reported that Trump attorney Todd Blanche said in the courtroom that “a trial that takes place before the election is a mistake and should not happen”, because it would be “unfair” to Trump and the American people.
In the filing, prosecutors contended it was wrong for Cannon to to require public identification of more than two-dozen people who participated in the investigation, including some who may never testify at trial and would be able to maintain anonymity unless Cannon reversed. Cannon previously indicated that the morning part of the hearing would address a request from Trump lawyers that prosecutors provide them with reams of additional information, which they believe will help mount a defense against the sweeping indictment. Trump is charged with violating the Espionage Act.
It also asked Cannon to force Trump to file under seal the most sensitive exhibits he wanted to make public – such as transcripts of witness testimony before the grand jury, confidential FBI reports, non-public details of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence – and redact less sensitive exhibits. The filing submitted by Trump, known as a motion to compel discovery, would allow Trump to challenge national security assessments of documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, and seek information about potential political bias among prosecutors. At times, the 68-page filing also read more like a list of political grievances, accusing the US intelligence community of harboring bias in its classification assessments and alleging collusion between prosecutors and the Biden White House.
In court, media outlets said, prosecutors called Trump’s complaints of collusion and bias “baseless”.
Trump’s lawyers also asked the judge to force prosecutors to release information about their interest in Stanley Woodward, the lawyer for the Trump valet and co-defendant Walt Nauta, who complained during the criminal investigation that he faced improper pressure to have Nauta cooperate against Trump.
In the afternoon part of the hearing, Cannon was set to focus on a prosecutors’ request that she reconsider a ruling they said would allow Trump to make public FBI documents produced during discovery public, revealing potential witnesses’ names.
Prosecutors argued Cannon applied the wrong legal standard when she allowed Trump to file exhibits without redactions. If Cannon did not reverse her decision, the filing said, prosecutors were prepared to appeal to force the reversal.
In the filing, prosecutors contended it was wrong for Cannon to to require public identification of more than two-dozen people who participated in the investigation, including some who may never testify at trial and would maintain anonymity unless Cannon reversed.
Prosecutors also asked Cannon to force Trump to file under seal the most sensitive exhibits he wanted to make public – such as transcripts of grand jury witness testimony, confidential FBI reports, non-public details of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence – and redact less sensitive exhibits.