A federal judge announced in a court hearing Thursday that former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign for the White House will not affect the schedule of the criminal case in which he is accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.
Hours later, the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan fulfilled that pledge by setting a schedule for the fast-moving case and leaving open the possibility that prosecutors could reveal more of the evidence they hope to use at trial against Mr. Trump. Court filings before Election Day.
Judge Chutkan set a series of deadlines for filings from both sides to assess the impact of several legal issues on the case, including a recent Supreme Court ruling that granted Mr. Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions he took as president.
After an occasionally tense proceeding in federal district court in Washington, Judge Chutkan set a September 26 date for prosecutors in the office of special counsel, Jack Smith, to present her opening brief on the question of immunity. In that brief, prosecutors intend to present evidence and arguments they plan to use at trial to show why none of that material — or any of the allegations in their newly amended indictment against Mr. Trump — is subject to the standard for presidential immunity. by the Supreme Court.
The brief is likely to include some evidence that goes beyond what was disclosed in the indictment, although parts of it may be redacted due to grand jury confidentiality rules.
The hearing in Washington was held to discuss the next steps in the case, which has been in limbo for nearly eight months as Mr. Trump pursued his claims of immunity from election interference charges all the way to the Supreme Court.
The court ruled in his favor In July, it granted him partial immunity from charges arising from certain official functions as president. The judges ordered Justice Chutkan to undertake the complex task of sorting out the New Amended Charge And deciding which of his many charges need to be thrown out under an immunity ruling and which can survive and go to trial.
In his brief order, Judge Chutak asked Mr. Trump’s lawyers to respond to the government’s submissions on immunity by October 17. He also asked them to finish their arguments on why they need more discovery information from the government by September 19.
The hearing — and Judge Chutkan’s order — again showed how the defense and prosecution have been at odds over the issue of timing almost since the start of the case.
One of Mr. Smith’s deputies, Thomas P. Windom began the proceedings by suggesting a late September deadline for the government’s arguments on why the entire amended indictment should be able to withstand a Supreme Court ruling.
Mr. Windom noted that the brief would likely contain new information, such as FBI interviews with witnesses, that would support the government’s contention that Mr. Trump was in contact with Joseph R. Biden Jr. is not acting in his official capacity as he tries to reverse his losses. , but was acting in his private role as a candidate for office.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, argued that any discussion about immunity should be postponed until at least December after the election, when the defense sought to attack the case on separate grounds.
When Judge Chutkan pressed Mr. Lauro on why he wanted to delay the immunity debate, he acknowledged that he was concerned that some of the new information about Mr. Trump that the government wanted to include in its court papers would come at a “sensitive time,” the election. There seemed to be a context.
He emphasized to Justice Chutak that the timing of the election was “not relevant” to the court’s proceedings.
“I’m definitely not getting caught up in the election controversy,” she said.
Mr. Lauro also suggested during the hearing that Judge Chutak should postpone the factual debate about immunity and first consider some of the issues related to the subject on a purely legal basis. He pointed specifically to issues surrounding Mr. Trump’s pressure on former Vice President Mike Pence to use his formal role in congressional proceedings to count Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, to disrupt the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.
Mr. Lauro argued that Judge Chutkan should have known that Mr. Trump’s conversations with Mr. Pence were subject to immunity and could not be part of a criminal case without illegally impinging on the president’s authority.
If so, he claimed, then the entire indictment should be thrown out because it would mean that evidence about the two men’s dealings was improperly exposed when the grand jury approved the indictments.
Mr. Smith’s lawyers argue that Mr. Trump’s discussions with Mr. Pence are not immune. But even if that assessment were wrong, Mr. Windom said, the indictment could still stand if the court determined that all the other evidence the grand jury heard was sufficient support for the indictment itself.
Judge Chutkan’s order did not limit the special counsel to discussing only legal issues about Mr. Pence, leaving Mr. Smith free to submit a more thorough factual filing that his team had proposed. Prosecutors suggested filing their arguments in a single brief so that there would be only one appellate battle in the matter.
Both sides and Judge Chutkan appeared to agree that although she ruled on immunity issues, it would be appealed again to the Supreme Court – bringing further delays.
The hearing began with a brief re-arraignment of Mr. Trump, who was Not in the courtroom But campaigning in New York. Through Mr. Lauro, Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty to the amended charge.
While the specific allegations were the same as in the original indictment, some parts — notably evidence about Mr. Trump’s efforts to bolster the Justice Department to support his claims of election fraud — were removed. Other parts of the charges were tweaked to reframe them as examples of what prosecutors called private “electioneering activity.”
Separately, Mr. Lauro said he intends to file a motion to claim that the case should be thrown out because Mr. Smith was improperly appointed as special counsel. Two months ago, Judge Allyn M. Cannon used the same legal argument Dismiss Mr. Trump’s other federal case — in which he was accused in federal court in Florida of keeping dozens of highly sensitive classified documents after he left office.
In his order, Judge Chutak, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, set an Oct. 24 deadline for Mr. Lauro to file a formal request to file a motion to appoint Mr. Smith.
But Judge Chutkan commented during the hearing that she did not find Judge Cannon’s ruling “particularly persuasive” and pointed out that there is binding precedent that special prosecutors are actually legal from the federal appeals court that oversees her in Washington.
Mr. Lauro tried to defend his plan to challenge Mr. Smith’s appointment by arguing that Justice Clarence Thomas questioned how Mr. Smith got his job in defiance of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
At one point, Mr. Lauro said Justice Thomas had “directed” Mr. Trump’s legal team to pursue the motion. But he quickly corrected himself, saying only that the justice had raised the issue in his consent.
However, Judge Chutkan interrupted him before he could make his correction, asking gruffly, “Did he direct you to do that?”
And sitting quietly in the courtroom watching the proceedings, Mr. Smith appeared to share the judge’s reaction, shaking his head vigorously.
Post Judge sets deadline in Trump election case, says campaign ‘not relevant’ appeared first New York Times.