Quite a three-way wrestling match has come into focus involving President Trump, his valet, Waltine Nauta, and Special Counsel Jack Smith — all of whom are grappling over the starting dates for hearings that will set the stage for a criminal trial of the former president and his “body man.”

Mr. Nauta wants to delay a conference in his case indefinitely until he can get his counsel lined up. Mr. Smith wants to hold him to a July 14 date for that pretrial hearing, where security clearances are to be discussed. At the same time, though, he wants jury selection to begin on December 11 rather than the August 14 date set by Judge Cannon. This apparent tension could flow from an assumption that Mr. Trump will pursue an even more distant date.

The calendric choreography, captured in a pair of memos filed on Monday to the federal district judge presiding in the case, Aileen Cannon, bring into focus the significant scheduling stakes for the criminal trial of a former president and his aide. They also telegraph that Mr. Smith is in a hurry, even as Mr. Nauta and his boss appear to be setting a more deliberate pace. 

Mr. Smith’s effort to hold Mr. Nauta to the originally scheduled date, though, sounds a different note than his concurrent effort to move the start of his — and Mr. Trump’s — trial to December from August. The twinned maneuvers suggest that the prosecutor is paying particular attention to pace in making his case. 

Mr. Smith’s strategy could be to try to turn Mr. Nauta to state’s evidence before the start of trial. In a filing, Mr. Smith described the case as one that “has only two defendants, involves straightforward theories of liability, and does not present novel questions of fact or law.” Now, Mr. Smith is contending with the procedural reality that those two defendants have their own timetables for trial.       

Mr. Nauta is charged with six criminal counts — Mr. Trump faces 37 —  with respect to their alleged conspiracy to conceal classified documents from federal investigators. Mr. Nauta has requested that a pre-trial conference scheduled by Judge Cannon be delayed because his attorney, Stanley Woodward, will be in the District of Columbia, representing a January 6 defendant. 

This request for a pause — or, in legal parlance, a “continuance” — comes after Mr. Nauta’s deliverance of his “not guilty” plea was pushed off for weeks while he sought local counsel, as required by regulations governing Florida’s southern federal district. He eventually secured the services of another attorney, Sasha Dadan, who, like Judge Cannon, is based at Fort Pierce.

Mr. Woodward, seeking a delay, argues that his “provisional security clearances” have not yet been approved. This is important because the hearing is triggered by the Classified Information Protection Act. It is intended to “make all determinations concerning the use, relevance, or admissibility of classified information that would otherwise be made during the trial.”

While acknowledging Ms. Dadan’s potential presence, Mr. Woodward nevertheless cites the Supreme Court’s holding that the spirit of the Sixth Amendment “reflects constitutional protection of the defendant’s free choice independent of concern for the objective fairness of the proceeding.”

Mr. Woodward also points out that the investigation leading to Mr. Nauta’s indictment “had long been conducted by a Grand Jury empaneled in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” where Mr. Woodward is licensed. Mr. Smith ultimately decided to bring charges in Florida rather than the District of Columbia or New Jersey.  

Mr. Woodward also represents Mr. Trump, raising the possibility that his other client could also be served by a delay. Adding to the intrigue, though, is that Mr. Woodward has thus far been silent on when he would prefer the criminal trial against the former president to begin. The southern district of Florida is known for its “rocket dockets,” or speedy trials. 

Mr. Smith, while he insists that the classified intelligence hearing be held as originally scheduled, has moved that the trial itself not begin until December because it could take up to two months for defense counsel to obtain the required clearances. Here, though, he maintains that “an indefinite continuance is unnecessary, will inject additional delay in this case, and is contrary to the public interest.”

Calling the upcoming conference a “crucial step in this prosecution,” Mr. Smith urges Judge Cannon to “set firm dates for the efficient movement of this case.” He also dings Mr. Woodward for requesting a delay while failing to fill out a form that is “necessary for him to receive both an interim clearance and final adjudication.”

In the filing pushing for a December 11 start, though, Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Trump’s team “confirmed they do not oppose an adjournment of the current trial date,” though they have not offered an alternative. The special counsel predicts that his defense counterparts “anticipate filing an opposition to this motion.” Republican presidential primaries are set to begin in February 2024.