Jack Smith 'untethered from reality' in opposing delay in Trump documents proceedings

The legal battles Donald Trump is fighting in multiple jurisdictions continue apace, even while he is stuck sitting in a Manhattan courtroom for the next several weeks.

Lawyers for the former president in his federal classified documents case, however, are arguing for the suspension of key deadlines in the matter, suggesting that opposition on the issue from special counsel Jack Smith is “untethered from reality, as the Epoch Times reports.

Federal prosecutors contended that case deadlines should remain untouched despite Trump's compulsory attendance at his New York hush money trial, a position which drew strong pushback from defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Christopher Kise.

According to Smith, any further delay in pretrial proceedings in the documents case would result in unacceptable prejudice toward the government.

In the estimation of Trump's lawyers, that assertion was unsupported and should, therefore, be discounted by the presiding judge.

“Yet, the SCO [Special Counsel Office] makes no effort to actually identify how the government would be prejudiced by an extension of time to allow President Trump and his counsel the right to defend him in New York and before this court,” they declared in a Thursday filing.

Furthermore, the defense team suggested, “The SCO then ignores the obvious and substantial prejudice to President Trump” that would arise absent a delay in pretrial processes.

At issue, in part, was a dispute over materials Smith's team said Trump's attorneys had well in advance of a May 9 deadline, but which the defense lawyers said could not be properly reviewed given the demands of the New York trial that commenced this week.

“Simply put, President Trump and his counsel cannot prepare -- or even discuss -- the required filings anywhere but an appropriate SCIF, a virtually impossible task given President Trump and Messrs. Blanche and [Emil] Bove's involvement in People v. Trump...in New York,” they said.

Even more egregious in the eyes of Trump's lawyers, was Smith's suggestion that their client's constitutional rights were “not implicated” if an adjournment was not granted.

“This premise is untethered to reality and disregards the substantial motion practice that has occurred before this court,” they added.

Government lawyers also opined that if Blanche and Kise were overly occupied with the New York case, local Florida counsel would suffice in terms of handling motion practice in the documents case, something Trump's attorneys branded “disingenuous at best.”

As things stand now, Trump is required to be present for all court proceedings in his New York case, meaning he must attend trial four days per week until its conclusion, a fact which not only hampers his ability to contribute to his defense in his other ongoing cases, but also keeps him off the presidential campaign trail.

Precisely how this particular battle will be resolved remains to be seen, but it seems clear that Smith has no qualms about cutting corners when it comes to fairness for a criminal defendant already beset with unimaginable demands on his time and resources.