Latest Breaking News On - A march 4th trial - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
veritable traffic jam of trump trials, a situation that once seemed farfetched. the biggest trial concerns trump's blatant attempts to end the american constitutional republic. that trial, brought by special counsel's office in washington, d.c., is slated to start early next year. throughout all of this, the aftermath of january 6th, particularly, i have wondered, what's he going to face? any kind of justice for the attempted coup? that question was answered on august 1st when special counsel jack smith indicted him on four felony counts for trying to steal the election now. subsequently was answered again by fani willis in fulton county, georgia. as a republican front runner and criminal defendant runs for president explicitly with the message of finishing the job he started on january 6th. give back power to avoid criminal prosecution and to end the american constitutional republic, the question i have now is, will he have to stand trial before election day?
these investigations are now cases that the american justice system does not move that swiftly. and given that content taxed, and maybe john laura was right, but there are all kinds of reasons you could imagine the march 4th date's -- and if it were any normal trial in the category of experience, that others have had which is not really relevant to this, there would most likely be delays. the trial would probably move. it could go for a long time. but the thing to remember here, is that it is unlike any other trial in american history. it is the criminal trial with the highest public steaks of any criminal trial that has ever been conducted in the country's 236 year history. flat out, i don't think there's a close second. the public interest has never been higher. the public interest precisely in a swift trial has never been
that's what we are all thinking, right? it has been and remains to be an open question. there have been some big developments in the last few days, though. first of all, we now have a trial date. washington d.c. federal district court tanya chutkan said that trial date as march 4th, seven months before the november 2024 presidential election. it is also the day before the primaries on super tuesday. it is just two months after what the government proposed. jack smith has been clear from the start, from the day this indictment was unsealed, the case needs to go to trial as soon as possible. >> the attack on our nations capitol on january six, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. in this case, my office will seek a speedy trial, later evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens. >> this team argued the january trial date would vindicate the public strong interest in a speedy trial, and interest
higher. because the person who has the most latitude over whether it happens is judge chutkan, who does seem to recognize that. i take some solace in that. she clearly wants this trial done. jack smith and the special counsel office want this trial, because the american people deserve to have it done. everyone believes to be on the same page except the defendant and i assume his supporters. even the polling suggests that even americans want a quick trial. but trump said yesterday he would, get this, appeal judge chutkan's trial date order. that's not even possible. and it can't be appealed. which means, here we are, roughly six months out from the start of the trial. the only person who doesn't want it to happen is the republican front runner and his backers. and the only question is, what can they do to get out of it? doris cordell served 19 years as a judge including over a dozen on the superior court of
with how you think about this as a judge. there's a lot of discretion given to a judge over the timing of these things. you have an unusual case here for a number of reasons, not just the ex president has been indicted, but the campaign calendar. how do you think is a fair way to evaluate a schedule, and how would you be approaching it, were you this judge? >> no trial judge with any experience who is assigned a case this, gathering this much attention, such a high profile trial, would ever do anything in a haphazard manner. so when judge chutkan came forward and said the trial date is march the 4th you better believe she gave it a lot of thought. she has experience as a public defender so she understands what defense attorneys have to deal with in terms of going through documents. but be sure, she gave a lot of deliberation to this and i bet you she consulted and may have
seemed farfetched. the biggest trial concerns trump's blatant attempts to end the american constitutional republic. that trial, brought by special counsel's office in washington, d. c., is slated to start early next year. throughout all of this, the aftermath of january 6th, particularly, i have wondered, what's he going to face? any kind of justice for the attempted coup? that question was answered on august 1st when special counsel jack smith indicted him on four felony counts for trying to steal the election. subsequently was answered again by fani willis in fulton county, georgia. as a republican front runner and criminal defendant runs for president explicitly with the message of finishing the job he started on january 6th. give back power to avoid criminal prosecution and to end the american constitutional republic, the question i have now is, will he have to stand trial before election day? that's what we are all thinking, right?
consulted with other judges on the bench to put together what is the fairest way for both sides understanding full well that the defense is entitled to due process, the time to put the case together. so when she came out with this, it wasn't like oh, i'll just have half of what each side wants. that didn't happen. trust me, she put in a lot of thought in coming up with this trial date. it's a date that is fine. will it change? it could. someone could get sick. things can happen. but if the data changed it's not going to be changed to two years out. >> she said this during those arguments. she said this to john laura, a very different estimate u. n. i. of the time prepare to prepare for this case. mr. trump will be treated with no more or less deference than any other defendant. harry, seemed to be flagging an issue for appeal already in this hearing. he says we will not be able to provide adequate representation
of the time prepare to prepare for this case. mr. trump will be treated with no more or less deference than any other defendant. harry, seemed to be flagging an issue for appeal already in this hearing. he says we will not be able to provide adequate representation to a client who has been charged with serious offenses as a result of that trial date. the trial date will deny president trump the opportunity to have effective assistance of counsel in light of the enormity of this case. of course effective assistance of counsel that something you can use for a post conviction appeal. what do you think about him using that language in that context here? >> there is no doubt about it, he was already in a bit of a hole with her in this hearing. she said twice turned down the temperature and he had proffer that outlandish proposal to go two years out, so he is without doubt saying to her, you are violating the constitution, your honor. of course we will comply, but you're violating the constitution and we're going to
issues, this is what i would do. you have the top. it's the judicial talk. the top is very simple. you look the litigants and the lawyers, all of, them did in the eye, and you say to them, and this is what i did when i presided over cases, i am going to give you the fairest trial you have ever had. and you are going to give me your respect and you're going to follow my orders. are we clear? and generally i would hear from both sides, yes your honor. then we would move on. and so it may be soon the judge chutkan, when these attorneys start again about maybe the trial date, to have the top, the judicial talk. it certainly worked for me, and i'm not the only person, the only judge who has done this, especially when you're a female judge. sometimes we don't get the respect that we should be getting as opposed to a male judge. and also being a judge of color. so this combination is such
date for chesebro last, week he said the stage for chesebro alone at this time. and fani willis is probably making the calculus of october 23rd is not that far away, i already have sydney powell who wants a speedy trial. i have little trump who has already told the court that he intends to sever with but hasn't. yeah she's basically saying judge, it's time to move this train along. if you're going to several people, let's have a briefing. let's go through this process. but, it's a default position, i want you to know, judge, my position is, we should try all these -- >> what that's gonna do is shake loose the motion to sever, which trump's people have been sitting on because every day that goes by is good for them. >> yes, and -- >> they're not gonna get head of anything. they're not like the ones are gonna go okay we probably sent them motion to sever. we're gonna wait to the last minute to do. it >> and they're probably gonna see how the removal motion is going to come. donald trump has not filed his own motion for removal, but his lawyers were in the court during that hearing and they're