Trump Advocates for Extended Timeline in January 6 Case

Special counsel Jack Smith and former President Donald Trump are currently in disagreement over the pace of proceedings in the election interference case against Trump. The former president indicated that legal proceedings could extend into late 2025 if necessary. This development comes following a joint filing submitted late Friday at the request of Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Judge Chutkan called for both parties to share their perspectives on how to move forward with the case, which has returned to her court after a recent Supreme Court decision regarding immunity. Both Smith and Trump are expected to appear in court for a hearing scheduled on September 5, focusing on Trump’s attempts to maintain power following his defeat in the 2020 election against President Biden.

In the filing, Smith suggested that a mini-trial to evaluate the evidence with live witness testimonies was not necessary. Instead, he proposed the case be handled through legal briefs. However, he did not outline a specific timeline, urging Judge Chutkan to consider the remaining immunity questions along with other case matters concurrently.

Trump’s legal team voiced plans to introduce several additional challenges in the case, advocating for these motions to be examined individually. Their strategy includes spending over a month scrutinizing an upcoming effort to dismiss the case based on challenges related to Smith’s appointment. This approach follows the success of similar arguments in the Florida classified documents case, which Smith is currently appealing.

According to Trump’s outlined plan, Judge Chutkan would not begin addressing immunity issues until December, past the election period. If Trump were to win the presidential race, he could potentially direct his Justice Department to drop the charges. His comments about proceeding in the spring and fall of 2025 suggest that Trump’s team is optimistic about having the case dismissed before that timeline.

This past week, Smith laid out his strategy to handle the case after the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. He filed a superseding indictment that retains the original charges against Trump but modifies the focus on the actions that occurred outside his presidential capacity.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last month that former presidents like Trump are immune from prosecution for core actions tied to their presidential duties, as well as for other official activities. However, actions taken outside the scope of presidential responsibilities are not protected by this immunity.

In response to this ruling, Smith removed from the indictment the specific allegations regarding Trump’s pressure on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. The court classified those conversations as within the realm of protected executive actions.

However, the revised indictment emphasizes acts by Trump executed in his capacity as a candidate, rather than as president. It claims Trump “used his campaign” to disseminate falsehoods regarding the election, noting that all legal challenges related to the election were conducted in his candidate capacity.

Moreover, Trump’s speech delivered near the White House on January 6, 2021, is depicted as him giving “a campaign speech at a privately-funded, privately-organized political rally.”

On Friday, Trump’s legal team provided insights on the immunity issue, noting that Smith’s inclusion of conversations with former Vice President Mike Pence might serve as a basis for dismissing the entire case. The Supreme Court had indicated that such discussions are generally presumptively immune, but Smith’s focus on Pence’s lead in the Senate alters the context of their interactions, suggesting these may not qualify as protected communications from the White House.

Additionally, Trump has indicated plans to file motions related to another Supreme Court case, which limited the application of charges against individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riots. He noted that he might seek to dismiss his own case based on this recent Supreme Court ruling.

Source: Nexstar Media, Inc.