Trump pushes for lengthy timeline in Jan. 6 case

Special counsel Jack Smith and former President Trump are at odds over how swiftly to proceed in his election interference case, with the former president suggesting litigation could stretch into late 2025 “if necessary.”

The late Friday joint filing was at the request of Judge Tanya Chutkan, who asked each side to weigh in on how the case should proceed now that it has returned to her courtroom following the Supreme Court’s immunity decision last month.

Smith and Trump are both set to appear before the Judge in a Sept. 5 hearing in the case, centered on the former president’s efforts to remain in power following his 2020 election loss to President Biden.

The special counsel did not ask for a so-called mini trial that would review evidence collected in the case with live witness testimony, but suggested the matter be handled through legal briefs. He also failed to spell out a specific proposed timeline, suggesting instead that Chutkan weigh the remaining questions on immunity concurrently with other issues in the case. 

Trump’s team said it plans to file numerous additional challenges in the case, which the judge should review one-by-one. 

Their request includes spending more than a month weighing a coming effort to toss the case with a challenge of Smith’s appointment after such arguments were successful in his Florida classified documents case. The special counsel has appealed that ruling. 

Under Trump’s plan, Chutkan wouldn’t begin to address immunity issues in the case until December, well after the election, where, if the former president wins, he can direct his Justice Department (DOJ) to drop all charges. His nod to proceedings in the spring and fall of 2025 “if necessary” suggest the GOP nominee’s team believes they will succeed in getting the case tossed before then. 

Smith earlier this week previewed his plans to tackle the case in the wake of the immunity decision, filing a superseding indictment in the case. 

The filing keeps all the original charges brought against Trump but revised the case, focusing on how many of the former president’s actions were not done in his capacity as president. 

The Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 vote last month that former executives like Trump are immune from prosecution for core presidential actions and presumptively immune for other “official” actions. Acts taken outside of their official role, however, are not protected. 

Smith cut from the indictment the one plot specifically named as protected by the court: All of Trump’s pressure campaign to force DOJ to investigate his baseless claims of election fraud. Such conversations, the court determined, are within the bounds of core executive acts. 

But Smith otherwise shifted the indictment to focus on the actions Trump took as a private citizen or as a candidate for office, stressing that many of his actions had no connection with his responsibilities as president.  

The latest version of the charges also accuses Trump of “us[ing] his campaign” to spread lies about the election and notes that all court challenges to the election were filed in his capacity as a candidate.

Trump’s speech near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, was characterized as him “giv[ing] a Campaign speech at a privately-funded, privately-organized political rally.” 

Trump’s team on Friday offered some insight into the immunity issue, suggesting that Smith’s inclusion of his conversations with then Vice-President Pence could be grounds for dismissing the entire case. 

The high court wrote that such conversations were presumptively immune, but in shifting the case Smith focused on Pence’s role in leading the Senate, suggesting their discussions would not fall under the category of protected White House communications. 

Trump also said he plans to file motions related to a separate Supreme Court case that limited the use of a charge used for many who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, with the former president writing that he may move to dismiss his own case based on the decision.