Special Counsel Jack Smith and former President Trump have been at odds over how quickly to move forward in the election interference case, with Trump suggesting the litigation could continue into late 2025 “if necessary.”
Late Friday Joint application This was at the request of Justice Tanya Chutkan, who had sought input from both sides on how the case should proceed now that it is back before the court following the Supreme Court's exoneration decision last month.
Smith and Trump are scheduled to appear before the judge on Sept. 5 for a hearing on the case, which centers on the former president's efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election to President Biden.
The special counsel did not seek a so-called mini-trial in which evidence collected in the case would be examined with witness testimony, suggesting the issue should be handled in briefs. He also did not give a specific timeline, suggesting instead that Chutkan should consider remaining issues regarding immunity at the same time as other issues in the case.
Trump's team said it plans to file numerous additional challenges in the case, which the judge will review one by one.
Their requests include a month or more to consider future efforts to dismiss the Florida classified documents case challenging Smith's appointment, a ruling the special counsel is appealing.
Under Trump's plan, Chutkan would not address immunity issues in the case until December, well after the election, at which point he could direct the Justice Department to drop all charges if he wins. His idea of holding trials “if necessary” in the spring and fall of 2025 suggests the Republican candidate's team believes the case can be dismissed by then.
Smith earlier this week previewed his plans to tackle the case following the immunity decision and filed charges in the case.
The filing keeps all of the original charges against Trump intact but amends the case to focus on how many of the former president's actions were not done in his capacity as president.
The Supreme Court ruled last month in a 6-3 vote that former top presidential officials like Trump are immune from prosecution for key actions taken as president and have presumptive immunity for other “official” actions, but they are not protected for conduct done outside their official roles.
Smith removed from the indictment one plan that the court specifically noted it would protect: any conversations by Trump to try to get the Justice Department to investigate his unfounded claims of election fraud. The court found such conversations fell within the scope of core executive conduct.
But Smith changed the indictment's focus to focus on actions Trump took as a private citizen and as a candidate for public office, emphasizing that many of his actions were unrelated to his responsibilities as president.
The latest allegation is that Trump said “U.S.[ing] He accuses “his campaign” of spreading lies about the election and points out that all lawsuits against it were filed in his capacity as a candidate.
President Trump's speech near the White House on January 6, 2021,[ing] “Election speeches at privately organized and privately funded political rallies.”
Trump's team offered its thoughts on the immunity issue on Friday, suggesting that Smith's inclusion of evidence of his conversations with then-Vice President Pence could be grounds for dismissing the entire case.
The Supreme Court had held that such conversations were presumptively immune, but Judge Smith, in redirecting the case, focused on Senate President Pence's role and suggested their conversations would not fall within the scope of protected White House communications.
Trump also said he plans to file a motion related to a separate Supreme Court case that limited the use of charges used against many of the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and wrote that he would also move to dismiss his own lawsuit based on that ruling.
