Lawyers for ex-President Donald Trump have come up with accusations that President Joe Biden — without evidence — of spearheading Trump’s prosecution and demanded a delay in his criminal trial via Media Ite.
It was almost a year ago now that the FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort home kicked off a stream of invective and threats against the FBI and eventually led to Trump’s arrest and arraignment on 37 counts related to violations of the Espionage Act.
Trump’s attorneys have now asked Judge Aileen Cannon — a Trump appointee — to delay the first hearing in the trial, and argued for slowing the entire proceeding on the basis of their claim that President Biden is engaging in a political prosecution.
Their first reference to this argument comes on page two of the filing:
Additional significant matters include the classification status of the documents and their purported impact on national security interests, the propriety of utilizing any “secret” evidence in a case of this nature, and the potential inability to select an impartial jury during a national Presidential election.
They put a finer point on the accusation on page six of the filing:
In general, the Defendants believe there should simply be no “secret” evidence, nor any facts concealed from public view relative to the prosecution of a leading Presidential candidate by his political opponent. Our democracy demands no less than full transparency. But it is nonetheless premature to even engage in the evaluation of such issues and the Court should therefore postpone its consideration until the Defendants are able to participate in an informed debate.
The filing goes on to say that Biden and Trump are “effectively (if not literally) directly adverse to one another in this action”:
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.
On Tuesday, Judge Cannon ruled on the filing, delaying the hearing by four days but leaving the rest of her order “in effect.”
