Donald Trump’s prosecution and defense in the federal lawsuit against him for unlawfully attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election are in court Thursday for the first time in more than a decade.
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan is presiding over her first hearing in the case since she regained control of it after the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision on July 1 granting broad criminal immunity to the president of the United States. The case was sent back to the lower court in August.
The debates are likely to be dominated by the consequences of this ruling on a possible trial, initially scheduled for March 4, 2024, and which appears highly unlikely to be held before the presidential election in November.
The former president and Republican candidate in this election, who declined to appear in court on Thursday, instructed his lawyers to formally declare that he was again pleading not guilty.
On August 27, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith issued a revised indictment to reflect the Supreme Court ruling, but with the same serious charges.
Donald Trump therefore remains charged with “conspiracy against American institutions” and “violating the right to vote” of voters for his pressure on local authorities in several key states in order to invalidate the official results of the election won by Democrat Joe Biden.
The Republican billionaire said in an interview last week that he had “every right” to try to reverse the outcome of the presidential election as he did.
– “Presumption of immunity” –
In addition to the schedule, the two sides will debate what evidence and witnesses the prosecution will be allowed to present.
Unsurprisingly, the defense last week proposed a timetable for considering pretrial motions that extends well beyond Election Day and even the January 2025 transfer of power.
For his part, the special counsel did not mention a date, deferring to the judge’s decision. Jack Smith said he was ready to present his written arguments on the question of criminal immunity invoked by Donald Trump as a former president “at any time the court deems appropriate.”
By a majority of six to three – conservative justices against progressives – the Supreme Court held that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts” but that he “is entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for his official acts.”
The Court referred to the trial court to determine which acts are potentially immune from criminal prosecution.
Jack Smith therefore proposes to Judge Chutkan to demonstrate how the acts prosecuted fall outside the scope of the exercise of presidential functions “by distinguishing the private electoral action of the accused from his official acts” and are therefore not covered by criminal immunity.
But he asks it to examine this question without waiting to rule on the various appeals for annulment of the defence.
On the contrary, Donald Trump’s lawyers are asking that the annulment appeals they are considering be considered first, stressing that this “will take considerable time and resources” before coming to the question of immunity.
“The court should take every reasonable step possible to resolve the case on legal grounds before allowing the invasive investigation into President Trump’s official acts while in office,” they argue.
sst/rle
