Former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith are in a showdown over how the election subversion case in Washington, DC, should proceed, as highlighted in a status report filed late Friday. Both parties are clearly at odds, with neither side eager to rush the case to trial before the November presidential election or even by the year's end. Smith hasn't committed to specific dates for the next steps in the case, while Trump is pushing for a timeline for pre-trial disputes that stretches well into 2025.
Key Points of Contention
-
Trump's Timeline: Trump's proposed schedule suggests it could take until fall 2025 to address "additional proceedings, if necessary." This extended timeline reflects Trump's strategy of delay, which has been consistent across all his legal battles.
-
The First Hearing After a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling: The upcoming hearing in DC's federal courthouse is set to be contentious, as Judge Tanya Chutkan will decide how the case moves forward. This hearing follows a significant Supreme Court decision granting Trump some immunity in the election subversion prosecution, which adds another layer of complexity to the proceedings.
-
Supreme Court Influence: Recently, Smith's team adjusted the indictment to align with the Supreme Court's ruling from this summer. This move shows how both sides are maneuvering within the constraints set by the court, and it’s likely to be a focal point in the upcoming hearing.
Disputes on How to Tackle Immunity and Other Issues
Smith and Trump disagree on the sequence of addressing the case's key issues and whether some can be resolved simultaneously. Smith's approach is to have Chutkan first address the questions stemming from the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity while managing other pre-trial matters. In contrast, Trump wants to first challenge the legitimacy of Smith's appointment before delving into the immunity issue. This order of operations could significantly affect the case's trajectory and timing.
-
Trump’s Legal Maneuvers: Trump’s legal team is set to argue that the grand jury, which issued the new superseding indictment, "considered immunized evidence." This includes presidential conduct that Trump claims is protected under the Supreme Court's ruling. Trump's lawyers are preparing to challenge the charges on multiple fronts, each to be treated separately and in a specific order, which could prolong the case further.
-
Challenges Based on Other Cases: Another potential angle for Trump’s defense is challenging the case based on the Supreme Court’s decision in a separate US Capitol riot case, which restricted how obstruction charges could be used against January 6 defendants. Trump's team argues that fully exploring each of these legal avenues will require considerable time and resources, which their proposed calendar takes into account while still aiming to keep the case moving forward.
Immunity Fight: Diverging Approaches
A significant disagreement lies in how the court should resolve whether presidential immunity covers parts of the superseding indictment. Prosecutors suggest starting with an opening brief that outlines their arguments for why the new indictment complies with the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Trump's team would then respond, followed by a reply from the prosecutors. Smith's team has expressed readiness to file this brief whenever the court deems appropriate, effectively leaving the pace in Judge Chutkan’s hands.
- Trump’s Lengthier Process: Trump, however, is advocating for a much slower process. He wants the first opportunity to challenge the indictment on immunity grounds and argues for additional discovery from the government to support his case. His proposed timeline includes another round of briefings over any immunity-related records that the government may refuse to release. According to Trump’s schedule, disputes over these records wouldn’t be settled until late January at the earliest, which could significantly delay the case.
Adjustments to the Indictment After the Supreme Court Ruling
Before the new superseding indictment was filed on Wednesday, prosecutors spent about eight weeks evaluating what evidence could still be included in light of the Supreme Court's decision on immunity. This careful review demonstrates Smith’s methodical approach to navigating this complex legal terrain.
-
What's In and What's Out: The updated indictment omits allegations that Trump attempted to use the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 election results, as well as evidence from Trump's conversations with his presidential advisers. Despite these cuts, the core charges of conspiracy and obstruction remain intact, to which Trump has pleaded not guilty.
-
A Strategy of Delay: Trump has consistently used delays as a key strategy in his legal defenses. He’s also been vocal about his belief that the prosecutions are politically motivated attempts to interfere with the 2024 election. On Tuesday, Trump took to Truth Social to label the superseding indictment as a “direct assault on Democracy,” a sentiment that resonates with his supporters and underscores his narrative of being targeted by the legal system.
Impact of Justice Department Policies
Justice Department policies typically discourage major public investigative actions within 60 days of an election to avoid influencing the outcome. This so-called "quiet period" would start next week, aligning with the 2024 presidential race. However, this policy isn’t seen as a strict rule and might not apply to cases already charged. In fact, during a March court session for the classified documents case in Florida, another case Smith brought against Trump, a prosecutor noted that the policy doesn't restrict ongoing cases.
The stakes are high as the legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of the 2024 election. Trump’s proposed delays could stretch the case well beyond the election, which could have significant implications for his campaign and potential presidency. The upcoming hearing, the first since the Supreme Court’s ruling, will be a critical moment in determining how the case proceeds, setting the stage for a prolonged and complex legal showdown.
As this high-stakes legal drama unfolds, it’s clear that both sides are gearing up for a lengthy battle. With Trump’s legal strategy of delay and Smith’s meticulous adjustments to the indictment, the case’s outcome remains uncertain. All eyes are on Judge Chutkan as she navigates this unprecedented legal landscape, which will undoubtedly have significant ramifications for the 2024 presidential race and beyond.
Login