Special counsel says holding Trump's classified docs trial before election would not violate DOJ policy
Source: ABC News
March 1, 2024, 12:36 PM
An attorney with the special counsel Jack Smith's team told a judge Friday that holding former President Donald Trump's classified documents trial before the November election would not violate Justice Department policy.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is hearing arguments today on moving the May 20 trial date in Trump's federal classified documents case during a court conference in Florida that the former president is attending in person. Special counsel Prosecutor Jay Bratt pushed for a July start, saying that holding a trial within 60 days of an election would not violate the Justice Department's typical aversion to bringing politically charged cases so close to an election.
Bratt told Judge Cannon a trial is permissible because the policy does not apply to already indicted matters. "We are in full compliance with the Justice Department manual," said Bratt."This case can be tried this summer," Bratt said, accusing the defense of "trying to wring out of the court" endless hearings that do not need to be held.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued that it would be "unfair" to put Trump on trial for mishandling classified documents before the election. "We very much continue to believe that a trial that takes place before the election is a mistake and should not happen," Blanche said during the scheduling conference in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/judges-determine-fate-2-trumps-criminal-trials-florida/story?id=107684124
This obsession over the DOJ OLC memo, which is just a guidance document that seeks to minimize "politics", is NOT A LAW.
It basically says that prosecutors should avoid proceeding on their own, pretty much indicating that they would need a sign-off (most likely from the top of the Department, i.e., the AG) if they did still need to proceed.
nowforever
(316 posts)Will be consulting his magic 8 ball tonite. Have no faith that wimp will show any level of fortitude on this.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,686 posts)Did you even read the post?
Bratt wouldnt have argued that the memo didnt apply to trials if he thought Garland would undercut his argument.
Do you actually think, after one of his prosecutors argued in court that the memo doesnt apply to trials of already indicted crimes, that Garland would come out and say, well actually, it does, and we will drop all charges against Trump in order to avoid going to trial in the weeks leading to an election ?
How embarrassing.
PSPS
(13,621 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,686 posts)There is absolutely nothing in his previous behaviour, even if you believe all the myths and false narratives, that would suggest he would undercut one of his prosecutors, and certainly nothing to indicate he would order all charges to be dropped.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,686 posts)But, as your post shows, does not cover trials for already indicted matters.
Of course, Trumps lawyers would try to introduce the memo to influence the judges ruling, but I think Bratt did an excellent job of shooting that argument down.
BumRushDaShow
(129,680 posts)before an election.
In the federal government (and I am a retiree from it), "guidance documents" are generally more detailed versions of and/or ARE "policy documents" - i.e., SOPs. But they usually have provisions/stipulations for deviations ( "exceptions" ), which normally involves authorization from the highest levels.
I.e., they don't want rogue government officials doing stuff right before an election as it screams "political" (like we saw Comey do in 2016). But if a certain candidate stands in the middle of 5th Ave. and shoots someone, they are NOT going to say ( *whine whine* ) "We have to wait until after the election to do something".
AZSkiffyGeek
(11,098 posts)Thanks for sharing this. Not that I expect the hair on fire crowd to care.
C_U_L8R
(45,026 posts)Neither should the courts.
For saying it out loud