The Florida federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago case seemingly shot back at federal prosecutors on Friday. After they warned the judge that Trump was trying to “manipulate” her by seeking further delay, she came back with a curt response: their warning was too long.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for the Southern District of Florida reportedly signaled at a Wednesday hearing that she would likely add another delay to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents trial, currently scheduled to be held in May.
At the hearing, Trump’s attorneys emphasized that they needed another delay in part because of the parallel January 6 case brought in D.C. Both the trial date and other scheduling issues, Trump’s lawyers said, “require President Trump and his lawyers to be in two places at once.”
It’s part of a clear strategy from Trump to delay the federal cases until the November 2024 election. If he wins, Trump would be able to grind the cases to a halt.
Federal prosecutors have sought to keep the May 2024 trial date in the Mar-a-Lago case in place. One prosecutor told Cannon at the hearing that the D.C. trial date could also shift; pushing back the Florida trial on that basis could only open the case up to more delays, prosecutors argued.
Hours after the hearing ended, Trump did exactly what he’s signaled he would do: he asked the judge in the D.C. case to halt the prosecution until the judiciary resolves his motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of presidential immunity. That request could take months to work its way through multiple appeals.
Prosecutors filed a notice on Thursday flagging this to Judge Cannon, portraying it as evidence of “his overriding interest in delaying both trials at any cost” while urging her not to “be manipulated.”
That’s a stark warning. Cannon has yet to issue her new scheduling order in the Mar-a-Lago case. Instead, she suggested in a terse Friday order, seemingly in response to the government’s notice, that the filing exceeded the 200 word limit.
She construed the government’s notice as a “notice of supplemental authority,” which, she said, is limited by local rules to stay under 200 words.
Now, Smith categorized his Thursday filing as a “notice,” so there’s at least a question here if the local rule that Cannon cites applies here. The notice clocked in at a whopping 237 words.
“Future non-compliant notices or unauthorized filings will be stricken without further notice,” she wrote.