Former President Donald Trump's last-ditch effort to delay his hush money trial failed for an ironic reason pointed out by a legal expert on Wednesday: Trump delayed.
CNN analyst Norm Eisen appeared on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" to discuss Judge Juan Merchan's ruling against Trump's plea to push the trial date back until after the
Supreme Court ruled on a presidential immunity claim made in his
election interference case . "Trump and his lawyers are running out of delay options," Eisen said, noting the latest ruling comes on the heels of eight failed attempts to delay the upcoming April 15 court date. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records to disguise hush money paid to adult film star
Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election, as is contended by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Also read: Truth Social stock is 'the perfect avenue for potential corruption': analysis While much of the coverage of Merchan's ruling has focused on Trump's attempt to use one criminal court case to delay another, Eisen pointed to a small irony that had gone unnoticed. "The judge found that Trump brought that up too late," Eisen said. "So Trump's own delay victimized his delay attempt." Eisen said he believes Trump has run out of delay options, saying, "This case is very likely going to trial with jury selection." The legal analyst also weighed in on the former president's Truth Social post Wednesday night in which he shared a controversial ally's attacks on Merchan's wife, despite a gag order restricting him from targeting the judges family. "It probably is a technical violation," Eisen said. "Not everything in court happens publicly so there may have also been private letter briefings about this, conferences with the judge or other concerns. "But if Trump keeps on this course ... I do think you're gonna see a court response as we've seen in other cases with gag orders." Watch the video below or at this link. Norm Eisen on CNN 4/4/24 youtu.be On Thursday, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trump's claim that the Presidential Records Act protects him from prosecution for taking government documents when he left office in 2021. The move came after special counsel Jack Smith submitted an emphatic response telling Cannon that her proposed jury instructions — that would direct jurors to consider that classified documents in the case could be considered personal property of Trump under the PRA — were unacceptable. Legal analysts pointed out that while the filing deals with the PRA argument, it doesn't fully address the matter. Taking to the
Social Media site X, former prosecutor Harry Litman pointed out that Cannon's decision kills Trump's attempt to have the case dismissed, but it leaves the possibility that the PRA argument will return during the trial. "Cannon: Indictment tracks 793(e) [a charge in the Espionage Act] and makes no mention of Presidential Records Act, and specified the nature of charges against Trump adequately. So denied. "NOW WAS THAT SO HARD?! Though as noted, still leaves room to revisit at trial so disaster scenario not fully closed off." Former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal agreed, explaining that Cannon is forcing Smith's hand to ask that she be removed from the case. "She has (weirdly and pointedly) refused to actually decide the issue, despite Jack Smith's warning that double jeopardy would then apply. I think Smith has no choice but to go to the 11th Circuit on mandamus [an order from the court that she fulfill her duties]. It's a tough standard, but it is met here. @JudicialMermaid Danielle, who writes about the law, also agreed: "I think Mandamus is the only option. Her remarks at the end were basically inviting him to do so. 'The parties remain free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke.'" ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the
White House is all that matters Former prosecutor Joyce Vance explained that it may appear like an effort to save face, but "Judge Cannon also vigorously denies what she characterizes as the Special Counsel's request for a final decision on jury instructions." "The Judge's characterization of what Special Counsel asked for is incorrect. He wanted a ruling on the Presidential Records Act motion, the ruling she has now delivered. And she ruled in his favor," she continued. Vance's recent column on her Substack addresses this point head-on. "The short version is that Judge Cannon ducked making a ruling on Trump’s motion to dismiss the prosecution based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), instead ordering the lawyers for both sides to submit jury instructions for two different scenarios. Each scenario assumed the PRA applies to this case and provides Trump with a defense,"' wrote Vance. There's also the matter of the jury instructions, which Cannon still hasn't actually addressed. "Except she won’t decide on the PRA jury instructions and seems to be allowing this to come up after a jury is seated. She is refusing to decide that early in this filing. So where does that leave us?" asked " Jack " podcast co-host Allison Gill. CONTINUE READING Show less Lawmakers who served on the House Select Committee that investigated the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack are taking steps to prepare for
Donald Trump to deploy the government to go after them if he's elected in November. "In 2016, I declared: I am your voice. Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice," Trump promised in March . "And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution." Read Also: How Trump's descent into legal hell could force America into 'narcissistic collapse' “Do you regret not locking [Clinton] up? And if you’re president again, will you lock people up?” Glenn Beck asked Trump in Aug. 2023. “ The answer is you have no choice, because they’re doing it to us ," Trump claimed. Jan. 6 committee members are taking the ex-president at his word, The
Los Angeles Times reported Thursday . One of those officials who is concerned is
California Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren. “If he intends to eliminate our constitutional system and start arresting his political enemies, I guess I would be on that list,” Lofgren told the Times. “One thing I did learn on the committee is to pay attention and listen to what Trump says , because he means it.” ALSO READ: No, Donald Trump, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment She hasn't got a plan in place yet, but her colleague, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), is having “real-time conversations” with his staff about ensuring his security if Trump makes good on the threats. Schiff is running for U.S.
Senate to replace the late Dianne Feinstein. “We’re taking this seriously, because we have to,” Schiff told the LA Times. “We’ve seen this movie before … and how perilous it is to ignore what someone is saying when they say they want to be a dictator.” When it comes to their
Republican former committee member, former Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Trump singled her out on March 17. He claimed she, “Should go to Jail along with the rest of the Unselect Committee!” The same day, she replied, “Lying in all caps doesn’t make it true, Donald. You know you and your lawyers have long had the evidence.” Trump also spent much of his time in court blaming President
Joe Biden for his prosecutions , and promising revenge if elected. Read the full report here. CONTINUE READING Show less Judge Aileen Cannon Thursday rejected former President Donald Trump's motion to dismiss his classified documents case based on the Presidential Records Act , according to court records and reports. Cannon ultimately opposed Trump's legal team's argument that he was allowed to store boxes of official documents at his Palm Beach social club Mar-a-Lago, reported MSNBC host Katie Phang. This decision parallels special counsel Jack Smith's argument that the documents were not Trump’s personal records and therefore not protected. ALSO READ: 'You ain’t going to get paid': Trump lawyer hit for pushing argument judge already nixed But Phang notes that Cannon also takes a small shot at Smith over contentious jury instruction debates . "Notably, Judge Cannon takes a shot at Special Counsel Jack Smith in this opinion," Phang reported. "She writes that the request for her to make a ruling on the jury instructions 'prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence' is 'unprecedent and unjust.'" CONTINUE READING Show less