The federal judge presiding over Donald Trump’s criminal election interference case shut down a bid by the former president to set his trial more than two-and-a-half years away.

This case is not going to trial in 2026,” Judge Tanya Chutkan said in a hearing Monday morning in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., NBC News reported.

But the judge also said that she would reject a proposal by federal prosecutors to bring the case to trial in less than five months.

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But the judge also said that she would reject a proposal by federal prosecutors to bring the case to trial in less than five months.

    There’s nothing unreasonable about that. There’s too many witnesses to interview and too much evidence to review otherwise. Last thing anybody wants is to railroad the trial.

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What gives you that idea? 5 months is plenty of time. He performed a failed coup on the US, we have it on video.

      Edit: The judge gave them a month or two extra, it’s fine. Non-televised which is a shame.

      A federal judge on Monday set a March 4, 2024, trial date in former President Donald Trump’s criminal election interference case, putting the top Republican presidential candidate on trial in Washington, D.C., seven months before the 2024 general election.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a hand to hand drug transaction or a traffic violation. A vigorous defense for a criminal conspiracy needs time. It certainly doesn’t need two years, but we’re also not at the point of suspending the rule of law and putting folks against the wall.

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He was at the point of trying to be king and all he has to do is stop firing his lawyers, lol. 5 months is fine, 7 months is the next best thing.

        • CobblerScholar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s important that the system is followed. It demonstrates that even the worst criminals will be treated fairly and equitably under the law. In a very real sense the institutions that we have spent 250 years perfecting are being tested themselves

    • BuelldozerA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, both parties are playing games with the trial dates. Prosecution wants to rush a date so that it will interfere with campaigning while the Defense wants a date so far in the future that practically speaking it will no longer matter.

      • krayj@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Prosecution wants to rush a date so that it will interfere with campaigning

        The prosecution has already done their work. They are ready to prosecute the case and present evidence. Delays allow for eye-witnesses’ memories to become less clear and opens them up to challenges on cross-examination. Wanting a speedy trial has nothing to do with political agenda and everything to do with wanting to present the most accurate facts possible.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        So prosecution always wants a faster date, because it increases the chances witnesses stay consistent and nothing surprising happens. They bring the case when they think they can win it, so they’re generally always ready to go immediately. I wouldn’t call it political.