Major Change Of Events As Trump Case May Now Not Go To Trial

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Timothy Parlatore, a former Trump criminal defense attorney, claimed that the investigation into former President Donald Trump for his alleged mishandling of classified documents after his presidency may not make it to the courts for trial.

Paraltore, who served as Trump’s criminal defense attorney up until last month, spoke on the matter about Trump appearing in Miami in June of 2023 for his arraignment in the mishandling of documents case brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Biden’s Department of Justice.

Donald Trump took up a non-guilty plea in federal court. However, if he is found guilty on all of the thirty-seven counts, he could face decades in prison. This outcome would be really tidy for the Biden administration in terms of getting him re-elected in next year’s race. Trump has always been regarded as Biden’s chief rival, so with him conveniently out of the picture, Biden may get his wish of a second term.

Parlatore reasoned that the case has several fundamental flaws, the grand jury process and breaches of attorney-client privilege in particular. He believes that the entire case may end up being thrown out as a result.

He suggested that Trump’s attorneys should “attack the conduct of the entire investigation and show through death by a thousand cuts why this entire investigation is irreparably tainted by government misconduct,” adding, “The case, therefore, should be dismissed or, at a minimum, the prosecutor should be disqualified.”

Furthermore, the federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents indictment has come up with some bad news for the prosecutorial team.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who had been appointed to her position by Trump during his term, declined special counsel Jack Smith’s teams’ request to delay a preliminary hearing in the case involving not only Trump, but his valet Walt Nauta, as well, that was intended to take place Friday, July 14. ABC News states that Cannon agreed to a rescheduled date for the hearing to be July 18.

“Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, had requested the delay due to a timing conflict with a bench trial he has to attend as defense counsel for a defendant charged in the Justice Department’s investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack,” the report said.

Lead federal prosecutor on Jack Smith’s team, Jay Bratt, was resistant to implementing a delay, arguing in his brief, “There is a strong public interest in the conference occurring as originally scheduled and the case proceeding as expeditiously as possible.”

Judge Cannon’s ruling arrives after Trump’s legal team submitted an overnight court filing on Monday, July 10 requesting a delay to the trial until the 2024 election occurs. Polls show that Trump is currently in the lead in the GOP field by double digits. Throwing him into jail would outweigh any opportunity for four years without Biden.

Jack Smith has also already maintained in a filing that he wishes to go to trial in December of this year because he claims the case “involves straightforward theories of liability, and does not present novel questions of fact or law,” according to the Washington Post.

Last week, Paul Sperry, an investigative reporter, allegedly saw new evidence that the August 2022 raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was in fact a “political” stunt and he mentioned Bratt by name in his tweet.

“In another sign the Mar-a-Lago raid was political, the DOJ prosecutor who authorized it – DNC donor and Russiagate alum Jay Bratt – blacked out every reference to Trump cooperating with subpoenas from the publicly released search warrant affidavit, new court docs reveal,” he tweeted.

In the following Tweets updating the situation, he noted that the warrant mentioned “additional documents bearing classification markings … have been produced to the government in response to a grand jury subpoena” and that, on page 18, it says Trump “agreed to accept service of a grand jury subpoena.”

On page 21 of the warrant, he said that it reads, “… documents [were] produced pursuant to the grand jury subpoena,” again painting a picture that Trump was indeed cooperating and a high-profile wasn’t at all necessary.

As for the troubles with the case itself, in their brief, former President Donald Trump’s legal team contended that the Department of Justice’s case raises several untested legal questions concerning their client’s entitlement to keep the documents according to the Presidential Records Act.

Even furthermore, the attorneys mentioned the severe challenge it would be to appoint an impartial jury in a case such as this one, when the defendant is a presidential candidate.

“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,” Trump’s legal team wrote.

“Here, there is simply no question any trial of this action during the pendency of a Presidential election will impact both the outcome of that election and, importantly, the ability of the Defendants to obtain a fair trial,” they added.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend