Tuesday, Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia consented to postpone the hearing regarding former President Donald Trump’s mishandling of classified documents.

ABC News reported that a preliminary hearing in the case involving both Trump and his valet Walt Nauta was originally scheduled for this Friday, but the judge rescheduled it for July 18.

“Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, had requested the delay due to a timing conflict with a bench trial he has to attend as defense counsel for a defendant charged in the Justice Department’s investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack,” the news outlet said.

Jay Bratt, the chief federal prosecutor supervising the case from the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith, opposed the delay.

According to ABC News, Bratt stated in his filing, “There is a strong public interest in the conference occurring as originally scheduled and the case proceeding as expeditiously as possible.”

Judge Aileen Cannon grants 'unnecessary' delay in Trump documents case https://t.co/d3Zx1FqI8H

— Thomas Kaine (@thomaskaine5) July 11, 2023

Cannon’s decision follows a Monday night court filing by Trump’s counsel seeking a trial delay until after the 2024 presidential election.

The Washington Post reported that Smith argued in a legal brief that the trial should begin in December because the case “involves straightforward theories of liability, and does not present novel questions of fact or law,”

Trump pled “not guilty” to all 37 counts in the 49-page indictment from the DOJ last month.

Trump’s attorneys argued in their brief that the DOJ’s case raises unanswered legal issues regarding their client’s right under the Presidential Records Act to retain documents.

The attorneys also mentioned the difficulty of selecting an impartial jury when the defendant is a presidential candidate.

More on this story via The Western Journal:

“Proceeding to trial during the pendency of a Presidential election cycle wherein opposing candidates are effectively (if not literally) directly adverse to one another in this action will create extraordinary challenges in the jury selection process and limit the Defendants’ ability to secure a fair and impartial adjudication,” the lawyers wrote. CONTINUE READING…