Washington — Federal prosecutors and attorneys for former President Donald Trump have countered special counsel Jack Smith’s actions. 2020 Election Related Events According to court documents, the lawsuit against Trump appears set to move forward.
“The parties recognize the types of motions and briefs expected in pretrial proceedings, but differ on how the court should schedule and conduct these matters,” the joint filing said.
Smith argued that the court must rule on the presidential immunity issue “first and foremost,” as the Supreme Court has required, and that the court must move quickly in the case.
“The government proposes to submit a written disclosure explaining why the disclaimer is being included. erase “This does not apply to the categories of charges set forth in the superseding indictment or to additional categories of unproven evidence the government will present and submit at trial,” prosecutors wrote.
Meanwhile, the former president’s legal team urged the court to give the parties more time to consider potential legal challenges, suggesting a timetable for filing the lawsuit in the spring or fall of 2025, about two years after the charges are first filed.
“President Trump has the right to legally challenge the new indictment and the grand jury proceedings upon which it is based,” his team later added. “We believe this case should be brought to a close as a matter of law and expect to demonstrate that.”
This filing comes in response to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s request for proposals from the parties on how to proceed with the litigation. July Supreme Court Ruling It granted Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority opinion ruled that presidents and former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” they take while in office.
Some of the conduct alleged in Smith’s original indictment, such as discussions between the Justice Department and Trump after the 2020 election, were explicitly excluded from the indictment, according to a July opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. But other conduct, including interactions with campaign staff and personal attorneys, could be investigated.
Now it is up to Chutkan to decide how to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling to the charges against Trump. But before she weighs in, Smith Secure a substitute indictment Prosecutors in their case against the former president on Tuesday dropped charges that Roberts said would fall under presidential immunity.
Trump still faces the same four federal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, in an indictment document that describes a plot to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump Plead not guilty He has continued to deny any wrongdoing in the original indictment since 2023.
The new 36-page indictment is based on a more elaborate series of criminal acts, which prosecutors wrote “reflect the government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s rulings.” Most of the alleged conduct in the first indictment remains in the new indictment, with notable exceptions, including the former president’s work with Justice Department officials and consultations with White House officials. January 6, 2021, Capitol Attack.
The filing Friday revealed that the Trump team plans to file an additional motion to dismiss the new indictment, based on the argument that the former president still enjoys immunity from prosecution for some of the acts included in Smith’s latest indictment, including social media posts, public statements, communications with state officials and interactions with former Vice President Mike Pence. Chutkan has already denied some of Trump’s motions to dismiss the case.
“The inability of the special counsel to rebut the allegations against Pence is a critical factor in this case. Since the special counsel will not be able to do so, the rest of the case becomes moot,” the Trump team wrote, capitalizing on Jack Smith’s decision to include conduct involving the then-vice president in the new indictment after the Supreme Court ruled that such conduct is “presumptively immune” from prosecution but can be rebutted.
Prosecutors will likely argue that the superseding indictment, which was modified in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, should not grant additional immunity. According to the new court filing, they intend to “distinguish (Trump’s) private campaign activities from official conduct and refute the presumption of immunity for any conduct that the courts might deem official.”
Chutkan must now decide how to proceed with the case, given the Supreme Court’s ruling and the new superseding indictment against Trump. The hearing is currently scheduled for September 5 in Washington, D.C., but Trump is not required to attend.
In particular, the former president’s legal team wrote that it intends to file a motion challenging the legality of Smith’s appointment and funding, a likely legal strategy similar to the one used in the special counsel’s second federal lawsuit against Trump. The federal district judge in Florida, Eileen Cannon, who oversaw the classified documents lawsuit, ruled last month in Trump’s favor. When she ruled The appointment of the special prosecutor was invalid.
Smith defended his appointment. And this week I urged The appeals court revived the case, arguing that Cannon’s ruling “insufficiently took into account” history and that decades of legal precedent supported his appointment.
Prosecutors proposed a timeline that would allow Chutkan to consider various legal issues in a “parallel” manner to keep proceedings moving forward.
