Judge Chutkan Delivers Major Victory to Jack Smith in D.C. Trump Case

Jack Smith, the Special Counsel in Washington D.C.’s prosecution of Donald Trump, former president of the United States, scored a victory of sorts on Tuesday.

We reported in early September that Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court overseeing the case had entered a scheduling ordnance in the case. While not contemplating trial before the November election date, it called for a briefing regarding the immunity issue by November 5, a move which is expected to attract increased media scrutiny in advance of the November election.

As I noted then:

This schedule shouldn’t affect Trump’s campaigning before the election from a practical perspective. It will, however, inject all sorts of negative statements (and innuendos), regarding Trump, 2020, and the 6th of January — which is, for the Dems likely, the next best option to having the trial happen before the election. Get ready.

According to the schedule, the DOJ was required to submit its brief by Thursday. The DOJ had asked for permission to file an “oversized” motion (i.e. a motion that was longer than the 45-page limit). Trump’s legal team resisted the Government’s request and asked for reconsideration of the proposed schedule. It didn’t matter if they had a good legal case to make, it was a sensible move given the pre-election feeding frenzy that the DOJ will be causing six weeks before the election.

Judge Chutkan’s decision to rule in favor of the DOJ was not surprising. She permitted them to file a more detailed pleading and denied Trump’s request for her reconsideration of the briefing schedule. Her reasoning is outlined in a six-page order, which she issued on Tuesday afternoon.

Chutkan’s order makes it clear that she was not impressed by the arguments made by Trump’s lawyers or the Supreme Court ruling on immunity. Here’s a sample:

The Supreme Court remanded this case to this court and instructed it to perform a “close and fact-specific” analysis of the “extensive and interrelated allegations” in the indictment.

Def. Opp’n, p. 1. The nine-page opposition rehashes the Defendant’s position that immunity should not start until he files a dismissal motion several months in the future. When Defendant was given the opportunity, the court addressed his scheduling objections.

To be complete, the court will also address the new and varied arguments of the Defendant about the pretrial calendar, which do not articulate a cognizable bias.

Defense counsel responded by re-framing the issue as an “election controversy”, insisting that it was “incredibly unfair” that the information could be made public at this sensitive time in the history of our nation. At 28-29. The pretrial schedule is not affected by the defendant’s concern about the political implications of the proceedings;

The order, which I don’t speak well, reads like this: This darned SCOTUS demanded it, so they will get it. Does it complicate the political situation for the former president (and perhaps future one)? Too damn bad.

No matter how badly they might have wanted to, the powers against Donald Trump will not be able to get their teeth into a second trial before the election. They’ll go for the next best thing, and smear Trump via court documents, to which his opponents aren’t expected to respond until several weeks later.