The first disclosure of the discovery, they said, contained more than 833,450 pages of material, including some 122,650 emails and 305,670 other documents. The lawyers said that after subsequent evidence was provided, they would likely make further requests to the government for more information.
The lawyers also pointed to the complex process of deciding how to handle the confidential materials at the heart of the case under the Classified Information Procedures Act, the subject of the hearing that had been scheduled for Friday. The lawyers strongly hinted that they were going to fight the government during the pretrial litigation over classified material, a process that could consume a significant amount of time.
“In general, the defendants believe that there simply should be no ‘secret’ evidence, nor any facts hidden from public view in connection with the prosecution of a prominent presidential candidate by his political opponent,” the attorneys wrote. “Our democracy demands nothing less than full transparency.”
In addition to his request for a delay, the filing served as a preview of Trump’s legal strategy, as the lawyers laid out the ways in which they planned to attack his impeachment.
The lawyers suggested, for example, that they intended to challenge some of the charges he faces by arguing that the Presidential Records Act allowed Trump to take White House documents. That interpretation of the Watergate-era law runs counter to how legal experts interpret it and was unsuccessful during a protracted legal battle last year over an outside arbitrator who was appointed to review a trove of materials seized by the FBI. from Mar-a. -Lake, private club and residence of Mr. Trump in Florida.
Trump’s lawyers also suggested they could bring “constitutional and statutory challenges” to Smith’s authority as special counsel. Furthermore, they set the stage for questions about whether an impartial jury could sit on trial while Trump was running for office.
“There is simply no question that any trial of this action during the pendency of a presidential election will affect both the outcome of that election and, more importantly, the defendants’ ability to obtain a fair trial,” they wrote.
