- Trump’s 2020 election criminal case continues
- Supreme Court ruling: presidents’ immunity categories
- Judge Chutkan to issue scheduling order next
Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution for attempting to overturn the 2020 election was expected to continue on Friday with limited accusations, following the US Supreme Court’s judgment that granted previous presidents wide immunity and remanded the matter to the supervising trial judge.
The official transfer of authority back to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan allows her to issue a scheduling order outlining how she plans to proceed, including whether she would hold public hearings to determine how to apply the immunity ruling.
The nation’s top court ruled on Trump’s immunity claim last month. However, the case has only recently returned to Chutkan’s custody due to a 25-day waiting time for any rehearing requests and another week for the ruling to be properly issued.
Chutkan’s next steps might have far-reaching consequences for the lawsuit and the November presidential election.
Trump is accused of supervising a massive campaign to undermine the 2020 presidential election results, including two counts of conspiracy to hinder election results certification, defrauding the government, and disenfranchising voters.
The alleged illegal conduct includes Trump pressuring US Justice Department officials to launch bogus investigations, Trump obstructing Congress from certifying the election, including attempting to co-opt his vice president, Trump inciting the Capitol attack, and Trump’s plot to recruit fake electors.
However, the Supreme Court determined that criminal culpability for presidents is divided into three categories: fundamental presidential tasks, which have absolute immunity, official acts of the office, which provide presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts, which carry no immunity.
According to the Guardian, Trump’s attorneys are anticipated to claim that Chutkan may decide whether the conduct is immune based solely on legal grounds, eliminating the need for witnesses or several evidentiary sessions.
Trump’s lawyers are anticipated to argue the maximalist position that they regarded all of the charged activity to be Trump acting in his official role as president and thus presumptively immune, and it is up to prosecutors to prove otherwise, according to the people.
And Trump’s lawyers are anticipated to argue that, while the Supreme Court appeared to consider evidence hearings to sort through the conduct – it used the term “fact-finding” – any issues can be handled only through legal arguments, according to the sources.
In doing so, Trump will attempt to prevent witness testimony that may be politically detrimental because it would suppress information regarding his efforts to influence the 2020 election, which has polled poorly, and legally damaging because it could lead Chutkan to rule against Trump.
Trump’s lawyers have privately stated that they expect at least some evidentiary hearings, but they also intend to challenge evidence from former Vice President Mike Pence and other high-profile White House officials.
Seize the opportunity: Sign up for Webull UK and receive free shares!
For example, if prosecutors try to call Pence or his chief of staff, Marc Short, to testify about meetings where Trump discussed stopping the January 6 certification, Trump will try to block the testimony by claiming executive privilege and having Pence invoke the speech or debate clause protection.
Trump has already been extremely successful in postponing his criminal charges, primarily by convincing the Supreme Court to hear the immunity appeal in the 2020 election subversion case, which had been stayed while the court evaluated the matter.
So far, the delay tactic has been to push the proceedings until after the November election, in the expectation that Trump would be re-elected and select a loyalist as attorney general, who will dismiss the charges.
Even if Trump loses, his attorneys have agreed on a legal strategy that might take months to resolve, depending on how prosecutors approach evidentiary hearings, in addition to the months of anticipated appeals over what Chutkan considers official acts.
