In the law, timing is everything. With the 2024 presidential election looming, a judge was asked to consider the government’s proposed December 11 court date for Trump’s classified documents trial. After considering arguments from both parties in the face, federal district Judge Aileen Cannon set the start date for the trial to begin on May 14, 2024.

While the extended court date gives the defense more time to prepare for the case (and more time for Donald Trump to campaign for president before being tried), it moves the trial itself closer to the next presidential election and the middle of campaign season. The trial would still begin before the Republican National Convention in August but well after Republican primaries have already been held in several states.

Trump and his valet and aide Walt Nauta are charged with conspiring to obstruct a federal probe by hiding highly classified materials and refusing to give them to the federal government. He and Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct the FBI investigation by moving the sensitive boxes filled with secret information to elude the FBI’s search.

Trump is alleged to have removed the documents from the White House when he left his office as the president of the United States, took them to his Mar-a-Lago residence, and stored them in a ballroom and a bathroom. The classified documents hold sensitive information about U.S. weapons, defense and allies.

In a pre-trial hearing on July 15, the Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys argued in the Fort Pierce, Florida, courtroom of Judge Cannon, during the official pre-trial appearance, that the proposed trial date for Trump and his aide, Walt Nauta, should be on the docket for December 11 and not moved to a later date.

Because of the proposed December date for a trial on the charges that Trump and Nauta illegally removed classified sealed documents to Mar-a-Lago, where the former president lives, this trial will be close to the 2024 presidential election. Trump is again running for office.

Trump’s attorneys told the judge that the December 11 court date is too close to the 2024 election, especially since Donald Trump is running for office. The federal prosecutors in the case disagreed and said they are seeking a speedy trial and do not want to delay, with defense lawyers arguing the trial date" is simply untenable and ignores the magnitude of this case."

Although the May trial date gives the defense more time to prepare, it moves the case closer to the next presidential election, not further. Any hopes by the Trump team that the trial date would be set after the election were quickly dashed.

Trump is the first United States president to face federal charges from his own government. His attorneys argued that "the sheer volume" of thousands of documents and materials in the case, which they must review, meant a later date should be set for the trial. They also told the judge that since Trump is the first-ever president to be charged by the government, while also running for office, they would need more time to prepare for the trial.

Trump attorneys Christopher Kise and Todd Blanche told the judge that

it’s too complicated to hold a trial so close to the election for the president of the United States since the defendant is indeed running for office.

"There is simply no question any trial of this action during the pendency of a Presidential election will impact both the outcome of that election and, importantly, the ability of the Defendants to obtain a fair trial," Kise and Blanche told the judge.

Trump’s attorneys also filed information about their plans for the upcoming trial, including a request to dismiss the charges; numerous legal challenges to the special counsel's authority; and the necessity of investigating the secret documents and whether they were indeed serious enough to be “classified.”

Jack Smith, special counsel for the prosecution, told Judge Cannon that there is no precedent to move the trial. There is “no basis in law or fact” to postpone the trial, he said.

Judge Cannon asked numerous questions to prosecutor Jay Bratt during the pre-trial proceedings. The requested information she asked for was, in part, about the defense attorneys describing the secret documents as “voluminous” and how many documents the Trump attorneys would need to review to prepare for the trial. She also asked for specific cases that Smith had told the judge were “comparable” to the upcoming trial of Trump.

Bratt, in part, said that the video footage evidence supplied by the FBI required only simple viewing and was not time-consuming like reading documents. He also told Judge Cannon that the secret documents taken by Trump to his home were definitely not declassified.

Another unique issue concerning the public trial is “graymail.” Congress passed the Classified Information Procedures Act in 1980 in response to protests by prosecutors that they were being forced to dismiss cases due to a defense strategy called “graymail.” This strategy was employed by defendants’ attorneys who would threaten to share classified evidence at their trials, meaning that national security could be at risk. If the classified documents in the trial were deemed dangerous for the public to see, then it was not worth the risk for the U.S. government to continue with such a case. In the Trump trial, this may be a strategy for the defense.

Mr. Trump was not in court for the pre-trial proceedings, but his aide Mr. Nauta was on hand, with the two attorneys.