Subject: Re: Another Win For President Trump
You don't think it is urgent for voters to know if a candidate on the ballot is a convicted criminal or not?

I don't think it's especially relevant to the Court, and probably for good reason. It's the norm that people who are being subjected to the criminal justice system have outside lives that are going to be completely disrupted by the proceedings, and many other people who will be affected by the fact that they may (or may not) end up being convicted of a crime. As a rule, the courts don't bend over backwards to accommodate those things, except when minor children are involved. The process is the process, protecting the rights of the defendant and the legitimacy of prosecutions are paramount, and the fact that the proceeding may have significant impacts on other people isn't generally the courts' concern.

The whole premise of the prosecution is that a former President - or a current candidate for President - should be treated like anyone else. That they are entitled to no greater favors or special treatment by virtue of their status than anyone else. The same is true on the reverse side, though - the fact that DJT is a candidate for President does not make him special. It doesn't entitle him - or the prosecution - to any extraordinary treatment in the review of the case. They'll bend within normal order to accommodate those outside factor, but they're not going to break normal order.

I'm sure the fact that the indictment didn't come until August 2023 - two and a half years after the events in question - also played a factor in the Court's assessment. If you bring charges in a white collar criminal prosecution with novel and heavily contested issues of law against a well-lawyered well-resourced defendant, it is the more likely outcome that you won't get to trial in a year. So I'm sure the Court casts a skeptical eye towards the proposition that it is "urgent" for this case to be resolved before the election.