President Trump’s late-night filing requesting an indefinite delay in his trial for storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago doubles as a full-throated repudiation of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against him. It also marks a signal moment for the federal district judge, Aileen Cannon, tasked with presiding over the first prosecution of a former president.

The motion lands on Judge Cannon’s docket as a response to Mr. Smith’s insistence that the jurist stick to a July 14 date for a pre-trial conference to discuss security clearances. Mr. Trump asks for a “measured consideration and timeline that allows for a careful and complete review of the procedures that led to this indictment.”

In asking for, effectively, a suspension of the case, Mr. Trump’s attorneys remind Judge Cannon that their client is running for president, which “requires a tremendous amount of time and energy, and that effort will continue until the election on November 5, 2024.” They are readying for a “dismissal.”

The filing ventures that “there is simply no question that any trial of this action during the pendency of a Presidential election will impact both the outcome of that election” and Mr. Trump’s ability to secure a fair trial. It notes “extraordinary challenges in the jury selection process.” 

Judge Cannon has set a trial date of August 14, and Mr. Smith proffered a December 11 beginning. Mr. Trump, though, argues that “there is most assuredly no reason for any expedited trial” for an “extraordinary case” that “presents a serious challenge to both the fact and perception of our American democracy.”

This case is so unusual, Mr. Trump maintains, because it is a “prosecution advanced by the administration of a sitting President against his chief political rival, himself a leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States.” Additionally,  the legal questions are “significant and present issues of first impression.” 

The filing, which bears the signatures of no fewer than four attorneys and is joined by Mr. Trump’s co-defendant and valet, Waltine Nauta, takes the position that “an accelerated trial schedule would also be contrary to the interests of our Nation.” It also argues that Mr. Trump’s criminal trial at New York will “impact on the ability of defense counsel to prepare effectively for trial.”

In asking Judge Cannon to “postpone any consideration of a new trial date,”the filing notes that there is “no ongoing threat to national security interests” from the documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago. Mr. Trump promises that he will mount “constitutional and statutory challenges relative to the authority of the Special Counsel.”

The Constitution’s Sixth Amendment ordains that a defendant “enjoys” the right to a “speedy and public trial” and the Fourteenth promises him “due process of law,” which Mr. Trump cites in his filing. He now argues before Judge Cannon — and, potentially and eventually the 11th Circuit — that due process requires delay as a prelude to dismissal of what he calls this “unprecedented and extraordinary action.”