Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 1:23-cr-257-TSC
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL
MOTIONS RELATED TO DISCOVERY AND SUBPOENAS
President Donald J. Trump, through counsel, respectfully submits this Reply in Support of
his Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 129 (the “Motion”), and states as follows:
A.
An Extension is Appropriate for Outstanding Discovery Requests
On the evening of Friday, November 3rd, the prosecution belatedly responded to a
substantive discovery demand from President Trump that, inter alia, invited a meet-and-confer on
several issues relating to outstanding discovery requests. For the reasons set forth in our original
motion, and for the reasons below, we respectfully request a brief adjournment of time until
November 17, 2023, to file any motions to compel related to these requests. This will allow the
parties to confer, as the prosecution has offered, and limit briefing regarding any remaining
discovery disputes.
Prior to filing his Motion, President Trump served two extensive letters on the prosecution
demanding additional documents that were not produced in discovery provided to date, one of
which was classified (the “October 15 Letter”) and another that was unclassified (the “October Letter”). On October 24, the prosecution provided a cursory, one-page response to the October Letter, but did not respond to the October 23 Letter, either that day or during the following week. Page 2 Because of the pending deadline, on November 1, 2023, President Trump filed the instant Motion
and requested a reasonable extension of time to confer with the prosecution and subsequently file
any necessary motions to compel.
The purpose of the Motion was—and is—to give the parties the opportunity to resolve as
much as possible by agreement before engaging in motion practice. The additional 10 days
requested by President Trump will allow the parties to continue their discussions and will also
allow President Trump’s counsel to streamline any motions to compel, consistent with the
responses we have received from the prosecution thus far and expected responses from the meetand-confer process. Notably, the prosecution did not respond to President Trump’s discovery
demands until the same day they objected to the brief adjournment, and then had the audacity to
argue that President Trump’s “requests are designed to disrupt the trial date and delay the resolution
of this matter,” Doc. 137 (the “Response”) at 1. Plainly, a 10-day extension of a motion deadline
for unproduced discovery in November 2023 is not designed to disrupt or delay. To the contrary,
the 10-day extension will promote efficiency and will limit motion practice before the Court.
On the evening of Friday, November 3—less than a week before the current deadline—the
prosecution responded to the October 23 Letter. Putting aside the reflexive, unreasonable rejection
of most of the discovery demands President Trump made, for approximately 24 of the requests
from the October 23 Letter, the letter requested “additional information in an effort to better
understand some of [the defense] requests,” and asked for information regarding “the defense’s
theory of discoverability.” However, that night, at 11:14 PM, the prosecution filed its Response,
stating incorrectly—and contrary to its own letter from earlier that night—that “the parties have
already conferred.” Response at 6. That is not the truth. Page 3 Although it appears that motion practice will be necessary for President Trump to receive
the full extent of the discovery to which he is entitled, it is possible that the parties can reach
agreement on at least some issues after the President Trump’s counsel are able to proffer to the
prosecution the reason for our demands, as it requested in its response to us. This process is typical
of most criminal cases, and there should be no surprise that President Trump seeks an opportunity
to reach agreement with the prosecution short of motion practice. Therefore, President Trump
respectfully requests the Court extend the time to file any motions directed to his October 15 and
October 23 Letters to the end of next week—November 17, 2023. This brief extension will cause
no prejudice to any party and will not affect any potential trial date.
B.
Additional Motions May Be Required for Discovery Issues and Disputes
Lacking sufficient time to review 13 million pages of discovery, President Trump does not
and cannot know if other issues exist within the government’s discovery productions, including
missing documents, incomplete metadata, and other technical problems. President Trump requests
the ability to raise motions directed to these key issues as he discovers them, and only to the extent
we cannot resolve the requests through private negotiation. Contrary to the prosecution’s
suggestion, this does not result in an “indeterminate, unworkable schedule controlled by the
defendant, rather than the Court.” Response at 6. Rather, most major issues will be addressed in
President Trump’s forthcoming motion to compel, with his proposed safety valve for additional
motions only applying to currently undiscovered issues. This will ensure the primary briefing
remains on track, while allowing President Trump to address other discrete, but still important,
discovery issues on the merits promptly after discovery. Similarly, with respect to the prosecution’s
ongoing productions, and to the extent the Court grants relief regarding the October 15 and Page 4 Letters, a safety valve will allow President Trump to raise additional issues with any later-produced
documents.C. More Time is Necessary for Rule 17(c) Subpoenas
By their terms, neither Rule 17(c) nor United States v. Nixon place deadlines on a
defendant’s right to request pretrial subpoenas. 418 U.S. 683 (1974). This is entirely logical, as the
purpose of such subpoenas is to “expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for
the inspection of the subpoenaed materials.” Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214,
220 (1951) (citation omitted).
The prosecution does not explain how a device explicitly designed to “expedite the trial,”
id., would somehow “disrupt the trial date and delay the resolution of this matter,” Response at 1.
Nor can it. It is undisputed that President Trump may seek subpoenas returnable at trial, and that
Rule 17(c) simply permits him to obtain responsive materials in advance to facilitate timely review.
If anything, arbitrarily preventing President Trump from requesting such documents anytime
between November 9 and the potential trial would be the cause of delay, as all the documents
would flood in at once, and President Trump would have a due process right to review them before
any testimony commences.
The prosecution acknowledges that it has not yet satisfied its discovery obligations, but argues
that its rolling productions should not affect the Court’s consideration of this Motion. Response,
at 5-6. Contrary to the prosecution’s suggestion, these ongoing productions confirm the need for
the requested extensions, as President Trump plainly cannot move to compel based on documents
he has not received. Moreover, the prosecution’s characterization of these rolling productions as
“a small percentage of the total discovery provided,” Response, at 6, demonstrates the
overwhelming size of the discovery, further supporting the need for reasonable extensions.
The prosecution concedes that estimating the quantity of responsive documents is an “imperfect
exercise,” but it nonetheless asserts, without explanation, that “any subpoena returns are unlikely
to be as extensive as the [President Trump] suggests.” Response at 7. To the contrary, given the
enormous amount of discovery the prosecution itself produced, it appears likely that any subpoena
returns will be similarly extensive. Indeed, even if the subpoenas resulted in materials just 10%
the size of the prosecution’s total production, that would still include approximately 1.3 million Page 5 D. Due Process and the Sixth Amendment Require the Requested Extensions
The prosecution has spent nearly three years investigating President Trump, expending tens
of millions of dollars assembling what is, undoubtedly, the largest team of attorneys and agents
ever tasked with prosecuting a single person. Taking full advantage of this resource imbalance, the
prosecution dumped nearly 13 million pages of discovery on President Trump and demanded an
immediate trial.
Now, the prosecution argues against a modest extension of a motion deadline that the Rules
allow the Court to extend without good cause, Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(1), and which will have no
effect on any potential trial date. In support, the prosecution argues President Trump should have
already fully reviewed all 13 million pages of discovery, in the most important criminal case in the
history of the United States, in scarcely more than 2 months. For the reasons stated above, and in
the Motion, these contentions are specious and meritless.
However, the prosecution’s response also speaks volumes for what it omits: any discussion
of President Trump’s inalienable rights to due process and counsel.
“[A] myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay
can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575,
589 (1964). “The right to counsel afforded under the Sixth Amendment means the effective
assistance of counsel and effective assistance requires time for preparation.” Hintz v. Beto,
pages—by itself more documents than even the most complicated criminal cases typically see in
total.
Relatedly, the prosecution complains that allowing 17(c) subpoenas closer to trial would “conflict
with other deadlines, such as turning over exhibit lists (December 18) and filing in limine motions
(December 27).” Response at 7 n.4. However, requiring production at the potential trial, instead of
any time pretrial, only exacerbates this concern. Page 6 F.2d 937, 941 (5th Cir. 1967) (citing Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 (1932); Roberts
v. United States, 325 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1963)) (emphasis added).
The inevitable consequence of refusing a continuance of the discovery motions deadline
would be to deprive the defense of essential pretrial discovery and preparation. “It is the manifest
duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees” of due process “and to accomplish that it is
essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711. “Rule
17(c) implements the Sixth Amendment guarantee that an accused have compulsory process to
secure evidence in his favor.” In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 621 (4th Cir. 1988)
(citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). If this guarantee is to mean anything,
the defense must have adequate time to review all of the evidence—including exculpatory
evidence President Trump may be required to seek through motion(s) to compel because the
prosecution has thus far suppressed it. See Bowman Dairy, 341 U.S. at 220; see also In re Sealed
Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887, 897 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (rejecting argument
that defense should have been required to subpoena exculpatory information because “the
prosecutor is responsible for any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the
government’s behalf in the case . . .”); United States v. Iverson, 648 F.2d 737, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(holding that “the primary obligation for the disclosure of matters which are essentially in the
prosecutorial domain lies with the government”).
From the beginning of this case, the prosecution’s sole focus has been on promoting a rush
to trial, knowing full well that President Trump and his attorneys could not possibly prepare under
a condensed pretrial schedule. The prosecution attempted to bury the defense in discovery while
opposing any effort by President Trump to appropriately defend himself or subject the prosecution
to “the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, Page 7 (1984). Without question, by all concerned, President Trump is being treated differently—and
more harshly—than any other party in the history of the American criminal justice system.
Meanwhile, the prosecution knew this case would involve complicated constitutional and
statutory defenses as well as factual defenses that would require extensive discovery from, among
others, hundreds of witnesses, several government agencies, and multiple state governments. The
Response discusses some of the efforts the defense has undertaken to defend this case, and the
many issues yet to be resolved before trial, as though President Trump’s entirely legitimate efforts
to defend himself somehow supports a condensed pretrial schedule. Response, at 2. Just the
opposite, the prosecution’s continued manipulation of the devices of justice counsel for more
time—not less—for President Trump to raise appropriate motions.Indeed, the prosecution’s consistent refusal to recognize President Trump’s rights to due
process and counsel reveals its transparent goal—defeating the Biden Administration’s main,
leading political rival, President Donald J. Trump, through a show trial, knowing full well that they
cannot do so at the ballot box. It is clear that a political show trial by a successor regime bent on
vengeance instead of justice will not advance the rule of law. See also Awol K. Allo, The ‘Show’
in the ‘Show Trial’: Contextualizing the Politicization of the Courtroom, 15 Barry L. Rev. 41, 6566 (Fall 2010) (“[A]ny procedural or substantive deviance or misapplication of due process rights
might make a show trial . . . the process of prior planning can be achieved through several strategies
ranging from a deliberate and systemic amendment of substantive and procedural rules to a covert
The prosecution casts President Trump’s inability to review discovery within its unrealistic
schedule as a “robotic incantation of an argument he unsuccessfully has made at least three times.”
Response, at 3. The prosecution avoids addressing this issue on the merits, because it is fully aware
that the defense cannot review 13 million pages of discovery in two months. Preventing adequate
preparation is, in fact, the prosecution’s strategic goal. And the reason the defense keeps raising
this issue is because it is a serious violation of President Trump’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment
rights, pervading and incurably tainting all aspects of this proceeding. Page 8 or overt act undermining the judicial process.”).4 The prosecution, by its very actions, has now delegitimized these legal proceedings, resulting in irreparable harm to our country and legal system.
The primary consideration here is the one the prosecution ignores; whether the accused’s
rights are vindicated or oppressed by the pretrial schedule. President Trump did not create this
truncated schedule and should not have to forgo his rights to motion practice because the
prosecution feels rushed by the upcoming election.
For these reasons, President Trump respectfully requests the Court grant the Motion.
Dated: November 6,
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John F. Lauro
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL (813) 222-
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
Emil Bove, Esq. (PHV)
Emil.Bove@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite New York, NY (212) 716-
Counsel for President Donald J. Trump
Here, seeking to deprive President Trump of his rights to effective assistance of counsel, to
compel discovery, and to use of Rule 17(c) is a telltale characteristic of a political show trial, which
often includes: 1) denying the defendant the right to tell another version of events that could force
the prosecution to yield control over the story told by trial; 2) defense counsel who are not afforded
time to prepare sufficiently, and so could not mount an adequate defense; 3) denial of the right to
obtain exculpatory evidence, which includes the right to subpoena defense witnesses and relevant
records; and 4) denial of the right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence.
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 1:23-cr-257-TSC
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL
MOTIONS RELATED TO DISCOVERY AND SUBPOENAS
President Donald J. Trump, through counsel, respectfully submits this Reply in Support of
his Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 129 (the “Motion”), and states as follows:
A.
An Extension is Appropriate for Outstanding Discovery Requests
On the evening of Friday, November 3rd, the prosecution belatedly responded to a
substantive discovery demand from President Trump that, inter alia, invited a meet-and-confer on
several issues relating to outstanding discovery requests. For the reasons set forth in our original
motion, and for the reasons below, we respectfully request a brief adjournment of time until
November 17, 2023, to file any motions to compel related to these requests. This will allow the
parties to confer, as the prosecution has offered, and limit briefing regarding any remaining
discovery disputes.
Prior to filing his Motion, President Trump served two extensive letters on the prosecution
demanding additional documents that were not produced in discovery provided to date, one of
which was classified (the “October 15 Letter”) and another that was unclassified (the “October 23
Letter”). On October 24, the prosecution provided a cursory, one-page response to the October 15
Letter, but did not respond to the October 23 Letter, either that day or during the following week.
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 8
Because of the pending deadline, on November 1, 2023, President Trump filed the instant Motion
and requested a reasonable extension of time to confer with the prosecution and subsequently file
any necessary motions to compel.
The purpose of the Motion was—and is—to give the parties the opportunity to resolve as
much as possible by agreement before engaging in motion practice. The additional 10 days
requested by President Trump will allow the parties to continue their discussions and will also
allow President Trump’s counsel to streamline any motions to compel, consistent with the
responses we have received from the prosecution thus far and expected responses from the meetand-confer process. Notably, the prosecution did not respond to President Trump’s discovery
demands until the same day they objected to the brief adjournment, and then had the audacity to
argue that President Trump’s “requests are designed to disrupt the trial date and delay the resolution
of this matter,” Doc. 137 (the “Response”) at 1. Plainly, a 10-day extension of a motion deadline
for unproduced discovery in November 2023 is not designed to disrupt or delay. To the contrary,
the 10-day extension will promote efficiency and will limit motion practice before the Court.
On the evening of Friday, November 3—less than a week before the current deadline—the
prosecution responded to the October 23 Letter. Putting aside the reflexive, unreasonable rejection
of most of the discovery demands President Trump made, for approximately 24 of the requests
from the October 23 Letter, the letter requested “additional information in an effort to better
understand some of [the defense] requests,” and asked for information regarding “the defense’s
theory of discoverability.” However, that night, at 11:14 PM, the prosecution filed its Response,
stating incorrectly—and contrary to its own letter from earlier that night—that “the parties have
already conferred.” Response at 6. That is not the truth.
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 3 of 8
Although it appears that motion practice will be necessary for President Trump to receive
the full extent of the discovery to which he is entitled, it is possible that the parties can reach
agreement on at least some issues after the President Trump’s counsel are able to proffer to the
prosecution the reason for our demands, as it requested in its response to us. This process is typical
of most criminal cases, and there should be no surprise that President Trump seeks an opportunity
to reach agreement with the prosecution short of motion practice. Therefore, President Trump
respectfully requests the Court extend the time to file any motions directed to his October 15 and
October 23 Letters to the end of next week—November 17, 2023. This brief extension will cause
no prejudice to any party and will not affect any potential trial date.
B.
Additional Motions May Be Required for Discovery Issues and Disputes
Lacking sufficient time to review 13 million pages of discovery, President Trump does not
and cannot know if other issues exist within the government’s discovery productions, including
missing documents, incomplete metadata, and other technical problems. President Trump requests
the ability to raise motions directed to these key issues as he discovers them, and only to the extent
we cannot resolve the requests through private negotiation. Contrary to the prosecution’s
suggestion, this does not result in an “indeterminate, unworkable schedule controlled by the
defendant, rather than the Court.” Response at 6. Rather, most major issues will be addressed in
President Trump’s forthcoming motion to compel, with his proposed safety valve for additional
motions only applying to currently undiscovered issues. This will ensure the primary briefing
remains on track, while allowing President Trump to address other discrete, but still important,
discovery issues on the merits promptly after discovery. Similarly, with respect to the prosecution’s
ongoing productions, and to the extent the Court grants relief regarding the October 15 and 23
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 4 of 8
Letters, a safety valve will allow President Trump to raise additional issues with any later-produced
documents.1
C. More Time is Necessary for Rule 17(c) Subpoenas
By their terms, neither Rule 17(c) nor United States v. Nixon place deadlines on a
defendant’s right to request pretrial subpoenas. 418 U.S. 683 (1974). This is entirely logical, as the
purpose of such subpoenas is to “expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for
the inspection of the subpoenaed materials.” Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214,
220 (1951) (citation omitted).
The prosecution does not explain how a device explicitly designed to “expedite the trial,”
id., would somehow “disrupt the trial date and delay the resolution of this matter,” Response at 1.
Nor can it. It is undisputed that President Trump may seek subpoenas returnable at trial, and that
Rule 17(c) simply permits him to obtain responsive materials in advance to facilitate timely review.
If anything, arbitrarily preventing President Trump from requesting such documents anytime
between November 9 and the potential trial would be the cause of delay, as all the documents
would flood in at once, and President Trump would have a due process right to review them before
any testimony commences.2
1
The prosecution acknowledges that it has not yet satisfied its discovery obligations, but argues
that its rolling productions should not affect the Court’s consideration of this Motion. Response,
at 5-6. Contrary to the prosecution’s suggestion, these ongoing productions confirm the need for
the requested extensions, as President Trump plainly cannot move to compel based on documents
he has not received. Moreover, the prosecution’s characterization of these rolling productions as
“a small percentage of the total discovery provided,” Response, at 6, demonstrates the
overwhelming size of the discovery, further supporting the need for reasonable extensions.
2
The prosecution concedes that estimating the quantity of responsive documents is an “imperfect
exercise,” but it nonetheless asserts, without explanation, that “any subpoena returns are unlikely
to be as extensive as the [President Trump] suggests.” Response at 7. To the contrary, given the
enormous amount of discovery the prosecution itself produced, it appears likely that any subpoena
returns will be similarly extensive. Indeed, even if the subpoenas resulted in materials just 10%
the size of the prosecution’s total production, that would still include approximately 1.3 million
4
PDF Page 6
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 5 of 8
D. Due Process and the Sixth Amendment Require the Requested Extensions
The prosecution has spent nearly three years investigating President Trump, expending tens
of millions of dollars assembling what is, undoubtedly, the largest team of attorneys and agents
ever tasked with prosecuting a single person. Taking full advantage of this resource imbalance, the
prosecution dumped nearly 13 million pages of discovery on President Trump and demanded an
immediate trial.
Now, the prosecution argues against a modest extension of a motion deadline that the Rules
allow the Court to extend without good cause, Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(1), and which will have no
effect on any potential trial date. In support, the prosecution argues President Trump should have
already fully reviewed all 13 million pages of discovery, in the most important criminal case in the
history of the United States, in scarcely more than 2 months. For the reasons stated above, and in
the Motion, these contentions are specious and meritless.
However, the prosecution’s response also speaks volumes for what it omits: any discussion
of President Trump’s inalienable rights to due process and counsel.
“[A] myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay
can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575,
589 (1964). “The right to counsel afforded under the Sixth Amendment means the effective
assistance of counsel and effective assistance requires time for preparation.” Hintz v. Beto, 379
pages—by itself more documents than even the most complicated criminal cases typically see in
total.
Relatedly, the prosecution complains that allowing 17(c) subpoenas closer to trial would “conflict
with other deadlines, such as turning over exhibit lists (December 18) and filing in limine motions
(December 27).” Response at 7 n.4. However, requiring production at the potential trial, instead of
any time pretrial, only exacerbates this concern.
5
PDF Page 7
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 6 of 8
F.2d 937, 941 (5th Cir. 1967) (citing Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 (1932); Roberts
v. United States, 325 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1963)) (emphasis added).
The inevitable consequence of refusing a continuance of the discovery motions deadline
would be to deprive the defense of essential pretrial discovery and preparation. “It is the manifest
duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees” of due process “and to accomplish that it is
essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711. “Rule
17(c) implements the Sixth Amendment guarantee that an accused have compulsory process to
secure evidence in his favor.” In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 621 (4th Cir. 1988)
(citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). If this guarantee is to mean anything,
the defense must have adequate time to review all of the evidence—including exculpatory
evidence President Trump may be required to seek through motion(s) to compel because the
prosecution has thus far suppressed it. See Bowman Dairy, 341 U.S. at 220; see also In re Sealed
Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887, 897 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (rejecting argument
that defense should have been required to subpoena exculpatory information because “the
prosecutor is responsible for any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the
government’s behalf in the case . . .”); United States v. Iverson, 648 F.2d 737, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(holding that “the primary obligation for the disclosure of matters which are essentially in the
prosecutorial domain lies with the government”).
From the beginning of this case, the prosecution’s sole focus has been on promoting a rush
to trial, knowing full well that President Trump and his attorneys could not possibly prepare under
a condensed pretrial schedule. The prosecution attempted to bury the defense in discovery while
opposing any effort by President Trump to appropriately defend himself or subject the prosecution
to “the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656
6
PDF Page 8
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 7 of 8
(1984). Without question, by all concerned, President Trump is being treated differently—and
more harshly—than any other party in the history of the American criminal justice system.
Meanwhile, the prosecution knew this case would involve complicated constitutional and
statutory defenses as well as factual defenses that would require extensive discovery from, among
others, hundreds of witnesses, several government agencies, and multiple state governments. The
Response discusses some of the efforts the defense has undertaken to defend this case, and the
many issues yet to be resolved before trial, as though President Trump’s entirely legitimate efforts
to defend himself somehow supports a condensed pretrial schedule. Response, at 2. Just the
opposite, the prosecution’s continued manipulation of the devices of justice counsel for more
time—not less—for President Trump to raise appropriate motions.3
Indeed, the prosecution’s consistent refusal to recognize President Trump’s rights to due
process and counsel reveals its transparent goal—defeating the Biden Administration’s main,
leading political rival, President Donald J. Trump, through a show trial, knowing full well that they
cannot do so at the ballot box. It is clear that a political show trial by a successor regime bent on
vengeance instead of justice will not advance the rule of law. See also Awol K. Allo, The ‘Show’
in the ‘Show Trial’: Contextualizing the Politicization of the Courtroom, 15 Barry L. Rev. 41, 6566 (Fall 2010) (“[A]ny procedural or substantive deviance or misapplication of due process rights
might make a show trial . . . the process of prior planning can be achieved through several strategies
ranging from a deliberate and systemic amendment of substantive and procedural rules to a covert
3
The prosecution casts President Trump’s inability to review discovery within its unrealistic
schedule as a “robotic incantation of an argument he unsuccessfully has made at least three times.”
Response, at 3. The prosecution avoids addressing this issue on the merits, because it is fully aware
that the defense cannot review 13 million pages of discovery in two months. Preventing adequate
preparation is, in fact, the prosecution’s strategic goal. And the reason the defense keeps raising
this issue is because it is a serious violation of President Trump’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment
rights, pervading and incurably tainting all aspects of this proceeding.
7
PDF Page 9
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 144 Filed 11/06/23 Page 8 of 8
or overt act undermining the judicial process.”).4 The prosecution, by its very actions, has now delegitimized these legal proceedings, resulting in irreparable harm to our country and legal system.
The primary consideration here is the one the prosecution ignores; whether the accused’s
rights are vindicated or oppressed by the pretrial schedule. President Trump did not create this
truncated schedule and should not have to forgo his rights to motion practice because the
prosecution feels rushed by the upcoming election.
For these reasons, President Trump respectfully requests the Court grant the Motion.
Dated: November 6, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John F. Lauro
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 392830
jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 222-8990
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
Emil Bove, Esq. (PHV)
Emil.Bove@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite 4460
New York, NY 10005
(212) 716-1250
Counsel for President Donald J. Trump
4
Here, seeking to deprive President Trump of his rights to effective assistance of counsel, to
compel discovery, and to use of Rule 17(c) is a telltale characteristic of a political show trial, which
often includes: 1) denying the defendant the right to tell another version of events that could force
the prosecution to yield control over the story told by trial; 2) defense counsel who are not afforded
time to prepare sufficiently, and so could not mount an adequate defense; 3) denial of the right to
obtain exculpatory evidence, which includes the right to subpoena defense witnesses and relevant
records; and 4) denial of the right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence.
8
Back to 
