Smith's motions to move the trial forward are part of the "wheels of justice," just at Trump's motions to delay are part of the wheels of justice. It's all part of the "process running its course." The process includes motions from from the prosecution that are beneficial to the prosecution as well as motions from the defense that are beneficial to the defense. Why would Smith want to move the trial forward? There may be many reasons that have nothing to do with the coming election. Perhaps some of his key witnesses have life-threatening illnesses. Witnesses can also suddenly die without warning. Or perhaps key members of his prosecution team have given notice that they will be leaving his office at the end of the year. Or he wants to prosecute the case while the evidence is fresh in his mind. And testimony becomes less accurate with the passage of time--three years have already passed since the crimes alleged against Trump have occurred.

Given the evidence against Trump, wouldn't NOT prosecuting him in a timely fashion constitute election interference? If criminal charges were now pending against Joe Biden, wouldn't Trump and his supporters now be screaming that NOT prosecuting Biden before the election would constitute election interference?

Running for office does not, nor should it, suspend criminal justice. We are a nation of laws, and no one, not a sitting or former President, is above them. (The same Trump supporters arguing now that the trial should not occur before the election were the same people who chanted "lock her up" eight years ago, even though Clinton had never even been indicted for anything.)

Since Trump supporters believe Trump is innocent and the charges are a political witch hunt, they should want the trial to quickly occur so that a jury will have rendered a not guilty verdict in advance of the election, removing the criminal cloud hanging over Trump. Why aren't they eager for the world to see how flimsy they believe the Special Counsel's evidence is? Wouldn't an "innocent" verdict propel Trump to the Presidency?

Perhaps the real reason Trump supporters don't want the trial before the election is what they know deep in their hearts to be true ...

There are special provisions that specifically allow this in these situations, but in the end we disagree and there will probably be much more important issues for us to fight about than this. There is no argument I could make that would change your mind. To insult you or remark about your motives or comment on your intelligence would all be out of line. Disagreeing with me doesn't call for any of them. You are not required to agree with me, and all it really says about you is that you don't agree with me. I shouldn't have to explain all that, and I'm sure that you didn't require it, but I wanted to separate myself from how things so often go on this site. I really do have many questions I'd like to ask you, bet we're not going to resolve them here. I think it's unfortunate that people stake out territory and no amount of facts will sway them, but we probably all do that. I feel you are very biased, but most likely when you look my direction, you feel the same about me, so you and I simply can't resolve this.

It is true that either side can leverage their position with pretrial motions but the reasons cited like a witness may die can be handles by deposition if granted by the court and properly noticing the other side (since the accused has the right to confront and cross examine their accusers). In the deposition the deposed would have to produce any documents or other physical evidence ( these can be exceptions to the hearsay rule). The prosecutor has volumes where his case is put together in the order he will present it so his memory waning would probable not be good cause. In a case like this if the issues are complex and discovery isn’t complete or their are constitutional issues tied to a motion I would think to avoid further appeals, if the defendant waives his right to a speedy trial, the court should err on the side of the defendant. Of course, I am not an attorney and if I am way off base Bazo will let me know.

There are special provisions that specifically allow this in these situations, but in the end we disagree and there will probably be much more important issues for us to fight about than this. There is no argument I could make that would change your mind. To insult you or remark about your motives or comment on your intelligence would all be out of line. Disagreeing with me doesn't call for any of them. You are not required to agree with me, and all it really says about you is that you don't agree with me. I shouldn't have to explain all that, and I'm sure that you didn't require it, but I wanted to separate myself from how things so often go on this site. I really do have many questions I'd like to ask you, bet we're not going to resolve them here. I think it's unfortunate that people stake out territory and no amount of facts will sway them, but we probably all do that. I feel you are very biased, but most likely when you look my direction, you feel the same about me, so you and I simply can't resolve this.

No one is taking any of Trumps rights by taking it to SCOTUS. There isn't a chance in hell that the final decision wasn't going to be theirs. No matter what the appeals court were to decide, it was going to go to SCOTUS. The delay that this would give trump is not a right or something that is being taken away from him. If there are legitimate reasons that Trump should be given more time, they can be considered, but the delay that the appeals court would have added is not amongst his rights. If he needs more time to prepare, and has a right to it, he needs to make that case.