Trump and Special Counsel Present Conflicting Plans for 2020 Election Case

Federal prosecutors and attorneys representing former President Donald Trump filed opposing arguments concerning how the case initiated by special counsel Jack Smith regarding the 2020 election should proceed, as highlighted in court documents submitted late Friday.

According to the joint filing, both parties acknowledged the types of motions and briefs anticipated pre-trial, yet they expressed differing views on how the court should approach scheduling and conduct of these matters.

Smith advocated for the court to prioritize rulings on issues of presidential immunity, citing Supreme Court guidelines, and called for a swift progression of the case.

The government proposed to file an opening brief detailing why the presidential immunity invoked in the Trump case does not apply to the allegations in the superseding indictment or other unpled evidence set to be introduced at trial.

On the other hand, Trump’s legal team requested the court to allow more time for the parties to examine potential legal issues and suggested a schedule that could extend the hearings into the spring or fall of 2025, approximately two years following the initial charges.

Trump’s lawyers emphasized the former president’s right to contest the new indictment and the grand jury process leading to it, asserting that they expect to prove the case must be dismissed legally.

This filing comes in response to a request from U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan for each side to propose a course of action following the Supreme Court’s July ruling granting Trump some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

The ruling determined that presidents, both current and former, retain immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” committed during their presidency.

Some actions mentioned in Smith’s original indictment, particularly Trump’s discussions with the Justice Department post-2020 election, were explicitly exempted from the charges according to the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, conduct involving campaign officials and private attorneys may still be scrutinized.

Judge Chutkan must now decide how to apply the Supreme Court ruling to Trump’s charges. Smith recently secured a superseding indictment against Trump, which omitted conduct that the Supreme Court deemed covered by presidential immunity.

Despite the changes, Trump continues to face four federal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. He has pleaded not guilty to the earlier indictment and maintains his claim of innocence.

The updated 36-page indictment is based on a more narrowly defined set of allegations. Prosecutors indicated that it reflects an effort to adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision.

While much of the originally alleged conduct remains, notable exceptions include interactions Trump had with Justice Department officials and White House consultations related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Trump’s filing revealed plans for additional motions aimed at dismissing the new indictment, asserting that parts of the conduct cited in Smith’s latest indictment are immune from prosecution. This includes social media statements, communications with state officials, and interactions with former Vice President Mike Pence. Previously, Judge Chutkan denied several motions from Trump to dismiss the case.

In their filing, Trump’s attorneys insisted on the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Pence’s immunity, asserting that it would invalidate the remaining aspects of the case. They highlighted Jack Smith’s choice to include conduct related to Pence in the new charges, despite the Supreme Court classifying these actions as “presumptively immune.”

Prosecutors argue that the superseding indictment complies with the Supreme Court’s ruling, asserting that no further immunity should be granted. They intend to differentiate between Trump’s official actions and private election activities, aiming to counter the presumption of immunity regarding any conduct deemed official.

Judge Chutkan will now determine the way forward in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the new indictment against Trump. A hearing is scheduled for September 5 in Washington, D.C., which Trump is not obliged to attend.

Finally, Trump’s legal team indicated they intend to challenge the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment and the funding behind it, echoing a strategy previously used during the special counsel’s second federal case against Trump. Their legal arguments received some traction when U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in favor of Trump in the classified documents case, declaring Smith’s appointment invalid.

Smith has defended his appointment, arguing in an appeal that Judge Cannon’s decision failed to take into account historical context and established legal precedents that support his role.

In an effort to maintain the case’s momentum, prosecutors have proposed a simultaneous approach to evaluating various legal issues.