… after the election? In a situation with only bad choices in front of them, Donald Trump’s legal team apparently figures that having the indictment hanging over an entire presidential campaign is the least bad. Late yesterday, they filed a motion for a continuance in the classified-material and obstruction prosecution — a looooong continuance:

In a court filing late Monday night, lawyers for former President Donald Trump called for a lengthy delay of his federal trial on charges related to his handling of classified documents, suggesting it would not be possible to try the case prior to the 2024 election. …

“Thus, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), based on the extraordinary nature of this action, there is most assuredly no reason for any expedited trial, and the ends of justice are best served by a continuance,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

As a result, the attorneys wrote, “the Court should, respectfully, before establishing any trial date, allow time for development of further clarity as to the full nature and scope of the motions that will be filed, a better understanding of a realistic discovery and pre-trial timeline, and the completion of the security clearance process.”

That seems rather pessimistic, at least in terms of the length of pre-trial motions and the discovery process. The latter has already begun and has included several audio recordings, including the one made public underlying the charge of mishandling classified material. Pre-trial motions shouldn’t take a year or more  either. This may be an extraordinary set of circumstances, but it’s not going to be that complicated of a case to present, at least in the factual assertions. The matter of interpreting the law may be more complex, but again, Trump’s team has been making that case for months in anticipation of this indictment.

Of course, continuance requests from defendants usually get at least some deference. The Sixth Amendment requirement for a speedy trial applies to the accused, not to the accusers, and defendants can waive it if it is in their own interests. When the indictment dropped, I predicted that the Trump team would likely try to request a series of delays for various reasons in order to push a trial date too close to the Department of Justice’s 90-day window around elections. Instead, it appears that Trump’s legal team has decided to make that happen in one request for a long continuance to push the trial out to 2025.

Let’s put aside the legal considerations for a moment. How wise would it be to run for president — especially in a general election — with this indictment hanging over Trump’s head? Trump got a big boost in national polling when Alvin Bragg indicted him on nonsense charges in March, so there is some political hay to be made. Notably, though, this was among Republican primary voters, not the general electorate, and just as notably, the indictment at hand here didn’t deliver any fresh gains among GOP voters.

The data from general-electorate polling tells a different story. Trump’s RCP aggregate average favorability rating is worse than Joe Biden’s, -16.9 to -14.9, and even worse than Kamala Harris‘ -16.4. There’s no real difference yet in the 2024 general-election head-to-heads between Trump and Ron DeSantis if Biden is the Democrat nominee, but Trump already has 100% voter recognition, while DeSantis has more potential upside (and downside, for that matter). And DeSantis wouldn’t have a federal indictment hanging over the campaign, and possibly another indictment in Georgia related to the 2020 election as well.

That looks like a risky political strategy, but perhaps Trump’s attorneys don’t see much choice in the matter. Trump’s favorite New York Times reporter, Maggie Haberman, teams up with Alan Feuer to report that Team Trump sees an open indictment as a step above the alternative — a conviction:

Some of the former president’s advisers have been blunt in private conversations that he is looking to winning the election as a solution to his legal problems. And the request for an open-ended delay to the trial of Mr. Trump and his co-defendant, Walt Nauta, a personal aide, presents a high-stakes question for Judge Cannon, who came into the case already under scrutiny for making decisions favorable to the former president in the early phases of the investigation.

And the motion plays on Trump’s unavailability to assist his own defense because of his campaign duties:

“President Trump is running for president of the United States and is currently the likely Republican Party nominee,” they wrote. “This undertaking requires a tremendous amount of time and energy, and that effort will continue until the election on Nov. 5, 2024.”

“Mr. Nauta’s job requires him to accompany President Trump during most campaign trips around the country,” they continued. “This schedule makes trial preparation with both of the defendants challenging. Such preparation requires significant planning and time.”

That’s a rather risky claim. Judge Cannon could decide that this argues for an earliest possible trial date to avoid the problem of having a major-party nominee in the dock. Better to hold the trial in August as she originally scheduled, or any time before the Iowa caucus, to make sure that Republicans would not get trapped in a court proceeding rather than compete normally for the presidency. Would it not be better for the country to have this settled before Republican primary voters make that choice? I’d bet the special-counsel prosecutors are working on that argument for their response motion at the moment.

As for Nauta, the court’s answer would likely be simpler: Find another valet. Defendants are entitled to counsel of their choice, but not a “personal aide” of their choice.

Most importantly, the demand for a delay of this length strongly suggests that Trump and his attorneys know that they can’t beat the rap in court. If they truly believed in all of the legal hypotheses they’re tossing around regarding the Presidential Records Act and Trump’s ability to declassify material at whim without any process, they’d want to get in court immediately to get this prosecution out of the way before making their big pitch for a second term. This strategy anticipates the need for a pardon application, not confidence in an acquittal.

Update: Nauta’s attorneys won a short delay on an upcoming hearing, at least:

Judge Aileen Cannon agreed Tuesday to delay a hearing involving how to handle classified material in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump and his valet, Walt Nauta.

The hearing, originally scheduled for Friday, July 14, will now occur on Tuesday, July 18.

Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, had requested the delay due to a timing conflict with a bench trial he has to attend as defense counsel for a defendant charged in the Justice Department’s investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Also, the latest episode of The Ed Morrissey Show podcast is now up! Today’s show features:

• Did Maria Bartiromo help Ron DeSantis — by being a tough journalist? Andrew Malcolm and I discuss the state of the GOP nomination contest, and why it really hasn’t yet begun.
• We also talk about the NYT’s stunning decision to disband its sports desk, the surprising (or not) endorsement from Turkey for Sweden’s NATO bid, and the risks and necessity of sending cluster bombs to Ukraine.

The Ed Morrissey Show is now a fully downloadable and streamable show at  Spotify, Apple Podcasts, the TEMS Podcast YouTube channel, and on Rumble and our own in-house portal at the #TEMS page!