There is a conflict between Former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith regarding the rate and order of actions in the case of electoral subversion in Washington DC. It was the part of the legal proceedings that was brought to the courts attention in a status report filed on a weekend.
There appears to be a consensus in the two parties with regard to one issue; there is no need to quarrel especially in regard to the commencement of the hearings especially in the coming November presidential elections or even the end of the year. Trump’s legal team stretched the timeline and at some point, they were indicating that the case could go on until the year 2025 with other hearings pushing it to late fall of the same year. Smith, on the other hand, does not realize these intentions and does not put forward any dates, reasonably setting almost all of the schedule on the shoulders of Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Contentious hearing ahead
Next week, the Judge Chutkan is going to preside over the hearing for the first time since a pivotal Supreme Court ruling denying outright immunity to Trump with regard to his election subversion prosecution. This riling has altered not only special counsels priorities but also the defense of the former president. The hearing is expected to deal with how it would proceed given the case, especially with regard to the ruling from the supreme court.
The issue of the Friday filing arose subsequently after the revisions made by Smith’s office to the initial charges, bringing them in line with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court.
Dispute over case order
Trump and Smith have one key disagreement regarding the sequence in which the court will consider pivotal issues. He and the other plaintiffs in the action have been dissatisfied with what Mr. Smith described as the need for the Court to only address the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on executive order defense issuance. Rather, the President thinks that the first line of actions of President Smith coalition is to consider lawfulness of appointment of Smith before getting into the immunity argument.
Trump’s legal representatives have further asserted that they might apply for the case to be quashed on the basis that the grand jury dealt with “immunised evidence”, that is, acts that the defendant claims fall under the Supreme Court ruling related protection. In addition, they previewed possible defenses with respect to the charges asserting that each and every issue will be tackled in isolation which will make the process last longer than anticipated.
Immunity fight looms
One of the most focal areas of disagreement is whether to waive the presidential immunity touch when addressing the charge preferences leveled against Trump. Smith’s team has made a suggestion to the court for it to use an expeditious route in determining this area while trimph of trumpis performing a desire to have a dougn process of that inrgye doing exploring more cut out more from the us government.
According to Trump’s suggested timelines, it appears that all arguments regarding issues of immunity and documentation would not be settled earlier than by late January 2021 at the earliest which would possibly cause further delays in this case.
Prosecutors consolidate charges
Adhering to this ruling, the prosecutors have made their allegations more concise and have dropped some allegations against Trump, particularly those linked to the attempts to weaponize the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 Presidential election. They have, however, left the rest, particularly those of conspiracy and obstruction of justice which Trump has maintained a not guilty plea in court.
Trump’s Playbook
In all the criminal actions taken against him, there has been one effective strategy that President Trump has employed which is delay. He has further been making allegations that the prosecutors are making an effort to shape the outcome of the election scheduled for the year 2024. This week on Trump’s Social media platform, Truth Social, Trump described the revamped indictment as “more than election interference- it is a direct assault on Supreme Democracy!!!”
Moving forward, it is likely that as the case progresses there will be the usual policy of the Justice Department discouraging major investigative steps from being taken close to an election. Prosecutors have however noted that this policy is quite unlikely to be applicable to cases that are already charged and therefore lifting the timeline to the discretion of Judge Chutkan.
