(TargetLiberty.org) – According to experts, the federal judge managing Donald Trump’s case concerning classified documents, Aileen Cannon, may have hinted at a significant delay that could affect the likelihood of securing a conviction before the upcoming November election.
Brad Moss, a national security attorney, suggested to The Hill that, “It is entirely possible that the Manhattan case is the only one that reaches a verdict before the election. The cases concerning documents at Mar-a-Lago and the election fraud allegations in D.C. are likely to be postponed. The outcome and timing of the D.C. case also depend on how and when the Supreme Court decides to rule. It’s conceivable that this trial could occur during the fall campaign, but it could just as easily get mired in prolonged legal disputes.”
Former CIA attorney Brian Greer also noted the impact of these delays, stating that a conviction before the election now seems “almost impossible.” Greer pointed out that Judge Cannon’s recent decision to push back the case has added at least a three-month delay compared to the Department of Justice’s proposed trial timeline, which had anticipated a July start.
“This delay significantly complicates any possibility of holding the trial before the election,” Greer told The Hill.
Donald Trump, currently the GOP front-runner, is facing 91 felony charges across four jurisdictions—two state courts and two federal courts.
His trial in New York, involving allegations that he made payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to hide an affair, started on April 15 and is ongoing, expected to continue for several more weeks.
Meanwhile, the classified documents case, led by special counsel Jack Smith of the U.S. Justice Department, has faced multiple delays. Smith had aimed for a July trial, but Judge Cannon recently postponed it indefinitely to address preliminary issues, including those related to the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA).
Judge Cannon emphasized the importance of resolving these pre-trial and CIPA-related issues thoroughly before setting a trial date, stating that moving forward without addressing these matters would be “imprudent and inconsistent with the court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions.”
Copyright 2024, TargetLiberty.org
