Former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith are in disagreement over the pace and order of proceedings in the election subversion case in Washington, DC. The issue was highlighted in a status report filed late Friday, setting the stage for a contentious hearing next week in federal court.
Both parties seem to agree on one point: there’s no rush to start the trial before the upcoming November presidential election, or even before the end of the year.Trump’s legal team has proposed a timeline that could stretch the case well into 2025, with potential additional proceedings carrying into the fall of that year. Smith, on the other hand, is not proposing firm dates, leaving much of the schedule in the hands of Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Contentious hearing ahead
Next week’s hearing in front of Judge Chutkan will be the first since a landmark Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump partial immunity in the election subversion prosecution. This ruling has influenced both the special counsel’s approach and the former president’s defense strategy. The hearing is expected to address how the case will proceed, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Friday filing also comes on the heels of a revised indictment from Smith’s office, which aligns the charges with the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Dispute over case order
A key disagreement between Trump and Smith is the order in which the court should address critical issues. Smith wants the court to first handle the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, while concurrently addressing other pre-trial matters. Trump, however, believes the court should first consider the legality of Smith’s appointment before moving on to the immunity debate.
Trump’s legal team has also indicated they may seek dismissal of the case on grounds that the grand jury considered “immunized evidence” – specifically, actions that Trump argues are protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Additionally, they previewed potential challenges to the charges, suggesting that each issue should be addressed separately, which would prolong the proceedings.
Immunity fight looms
One of the central points of contention is how to resolve whether presidential immunity applies to the charges against Trump. Smith’s team has proposed an expedited process to determine this, while Trump is pushing for a more extended process, including additional discovery from the government.
Trump’s proposed timeline suggests that any disputes over immunity-related documents might not be resolved until late January at the earliest, potentially delaying the case even further.
Prosecutors streamline allegations
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors have slimmed down their allegations, removing certain claims related to Trump’s alleged attempts to use the Justice Department to reverse the 2020 election results. However, they have retained the core charges of conspiracy and obstruction, to which Trump has previously pleaded not guilty.
Trump’s delay strategy
Throughout the criminal cases against him, Trump has consistently employed delay tactics. He has also accused prosecutors of trying to influence the 2024 election. In a recent Truth Social post, Trump called the revised indictment a “direct assault on Democracy!”
As the case moves forward, the Justice Department’s policy against taking major investigative steps close to an election is expected to come into play. However, prosecutors have indicated that this policy may not apply to cases that have already been charged, leaving the timeline in Judge Chutkan’s hands.
Both parties seem to agree on one point: there’s no rush to start the trial before the upcoming November presidential election, or even before the end of the year.Trump’s legal team has proposed a timeline that could stretch the case well into 2025, with potential additional proceedings carrying into the fall of that year. Smith, on the other hand, is not proposing firm dates, leaving much of the schedule in the hands of Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Contentious hearing ahead
Next week’s hearing in front of Judge Chutkan will be the first since a landmark Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump partial immunity in the election subversion prosecution. This ruling has influenced both the special counsel’s approach and the former president’s defense strategy. The hearing is expected to address how the case will proceed, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Friday filing also comes on the heels of a revised indictment from Smith’s office, which aligns the charges with the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Dispute over case order
A key disagreement between Trump and Smith is the order in which the court should address critical issues. Smith wants the court to first handle the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, while concurrently addressing other pre-trial matters. Trump, however, believes the court should first consider the legality of Smith’s appointment before moving on to the immunity debate.
Trump’s legal team has also indicated they may seek dismissal of the case on grounds that the grand jury considered “immunized evidence” – specifically, actions that Trump argues are protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Additionally, they previewed potential challenges to the charges, suggesting that each issue should be addressed separately, which would prolong the proceedings.
Immunity fight looms
One of the central points of contention is how to resolve whether presidential immunity applies to the charges against Trump. Smith’s team has proposed an expedited process to determine this, while Trump is pushing for a more extended process, including additional discovery from the government.
Trump’s proposed timeline suggests that any disputes over immunity-related documents might not be resolved until late January at the earliest, potentially delaying the case even further.
Prosecutors streamline allegations
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors have slimmed down their allegations, removing certain claims related to Trump’s alleged attempts to use the Justice Department to reverse the 2020 election results. However, they have retained the core charges of conspiracy and obstruction, to which Trump has previously pleaded not guilty.
Trump’s delay strategy
Throughout the criminal cases against him, Trump has consistently employed delay tactics. He has also accused prosecutors of trying to influence the 2024 election. In a recent Truth Social post, Trump called the revised indictment a “direct assault on Democracy!”
As the case moves forward, the Justice Department’s policy against taking major investigative steps close to an election is expected to come into play. However, prosecutors have indicated that this policy may not apply to cases that have already been charged, leaving the timeline in Judge Chutkan’s hands.