Turns Out Trump’s Delay Tactics Only Get Him So Far

Keeping up with Donald Trump’s court schedule is a dizzying task, since he faces two federal trials, a criminal trial in Georgia, and two separate civil and criminal trials in New York. (Oh, and he’s running for president.) To make it easier to follow along, each Monday we’ll be looking back on all the Trump trial–related developments you might have missed the previous week.

It’s only Monday, and there have already been some big developments in the former president’s legal battles. First, a New York appeals court granted Trump a 10-day extension to post a much lower bond in his civil fraud case, while a separate New York judge ruled that the hush money case will go to trial in three weeks’ time. And in the federal election interference case, Trump’s attorneys are hoping the Supreme Court will be more inclined to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment.

Mark your calendars: The former president’s first criminal indictment is heading to trial April 15. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan kept that date after a contentious hearing on Monday. He found that, despite thousands of new documents being introduced to the case at the eleventh hour, no harm was done and there was no need to delay the trial further.

The documents in question were provided by federal prosecutors of the Southern District of New York, in response to a subpoena filed by Trump’s attorneys about two months ago. That led to thousands of new documents being sent to Trump’s and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s legal teams two weeks before the original March 25 trial date. Both camps initially asked Merchan to delay the trial in order to allow time to process the new documents, but Bragg walked his request back, arguing that only about 270 documents were actually “relevant to the subject matter of this case.”

Most of these documents are related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations. He admitted to paying off adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 election to prevent her from going public about her alleged affair with Trump, and both Cohen and Daniels are central to Bragg’s indictment. (Trump has denied having an affair or being involved in the payments.)

Bragg’s office believes that most of the new documents are “entirely immaterial, duplicative or substantially duplicative of previously disclosed materials,” since last year his office requested documents about Cohen’s case and shared them with Trump’s attorneys.

Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead attorney on the hush money case, suggested that Bragg was the one at fault for the late document dump, arguing that the DA was responsible for the materials the SDNY turns over. However, Blanche could not cite an example of case law to prove his point, something Merchan had little patience for. “You are literally accusing the Manhattan DA’s office and the people assigned to this case of prosecutorial misconduct,” Merchan said. “And of trying to make me complicit in it—and you don’t have a single cite to support that position?”

Merchan faulted Blanche for filing a subpoena so late in the game, noting that he has been a federal prosecutor for 13 years and should know better. “You could have easily done exactly what you did in January, but for whatever reason, you waited until two months before trial,” said Merchan.

On Monday, Merchan also rejected Trump’s motion to have the hush money case dismissed.

Right as New York Attorney General Letitia James seemed to be gearing up to seize the former president’s assets, an appeals court ruled late Monday morning that Trump has 10 more days to secure a bond worth only $175 million—less than 40 percent of his $454 million fine.

For weeks now, Trump’s attorneys have been trying to lower the former president’s bond, arguing that securing one worth $454 million was a “practical impossibility.” That’s because, according to New York law, a defendant who wants to appeal a judgment has to post a bond worth the full value of the fine they owe first. New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who ruled that the former president committed fraud by overinflating the value of his assets, decided that Trump would have to pay $454 million.

Engoron also banned Trump from serving as an executive of any New York–based company for the next three years and from taking out any loans from a New York financial institution. However, the appeals court also stayed enforcement of Engoron’s judgment on both of those fronts. It did leave in place Engoron’s decision to instate a monitor at the Trump Organization to oversee its operations.

The AG appeared poised to begin the process of seizing Trump’s upstate New York mansion, known as Seven Springs, filing a judgment in the county last week. It’s unclear if she’ll be able to do so now, as it depends on whether Trump can come up with $175 million in the next 10 days in order to secure a bond.

Trump was elated by Monday’s news. “We will abide by the decision of the Appellate Division, post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash,” wrote Trump on Truth Social. “This also shows how ridiculous and outrageous Engoron’s original decision was at $450 million. I DID NOTHING WRONG AND NEW YORK SHOULD NEVER BE PUT IN A POSITION LIKE THIS AGAIN.”

Following a long and dramatic hearing to air out misconduct allegations against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Willis could remain on her election interference case, which charges Trump and 14 others with engaging in a criminal enterprise to keep the former president in power. (Four others accepted plea deals.) However, last week, he also allowed Trump to appeal his decision.

That means that Willis is not completely in the clear while the Georgia Court of Appeals considers the matter. If the court decides to take on the case, it will consider whether Willis has a conflict of interest in prosecuting her case, stemming from a romantic relationship she had with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired to work for her. (Willis and Wade maintain that the relationship began after he was hired. Wade has since resigned from the case.)

“The defense is optimistic that appellate review will lead to the case being dismissed and the DA being disqualified,” Steven Sadow, Trump’s attorney in the case, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Willis is still forging ahead, with her office noting that there is no stay on the case while the appeal is processed and that they hope to “move it forward to trial as quickly as possible.” No trial date has yet been set for this case, though Willis wants it to begin in August.

“I do think there are efforts to slow down this train, but the train is coming,” she told CNN on Saturday.

The high court is currently considering Trump’s argument that special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case should be thrown out because Trump was protected by presidential immunity while in office. Last week, Trump’s lawyers filed several new briefs urging the justices to dismiss the indictment outright.

Lower courts flatly rejected the idea that Trump is immune from prosecution for actions he took while in the White House. Yet, his attorneys are hoping it’ll stick with the Supreme Court, arguing that the president cannot function if there is a perpetual threat of criminal prosecution. “A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents,” wrote Trump’s attorneys. “That vital consideration alone resolves the question presented in favor of dismissal of this case.

They also offered the justices a possible solution: If they decide to reject the immunity argument, they should send the case back to Judge Tanya Chutkan for more “fact-finding.” (Delay, delay, delay!)

It’s not clear how the conservative-stacked high court will rule on this issue, but its decision to take it on means that a trial date before the November election may be an impossibility. As Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick argued in Slate, “The question is not whether a majority will ultimately agree with Trump (it won’t) but whether a majority will abet Trump’s efforts to run out the clock (it might).”

The justices have scheduled oral arguments in the case for April 25.