Special Counsel Jack Smith asked for more time to decide how to proceed with the prosecution of former President Trump on Jan. 6, asking to reverse a quick set of deadlines that began when the case returned to a lower court.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered lawyers for Smith and Trump to jointly propose how to move forward in the case after the Supreme Court handed the former president a victory by ruling that he has some protection from prosecution as a former executive.
By requesting a three-week delay in this process, Smith will likely disappoint those who asked him to request an evidentiary hearing with testimony from living witnesses before the election.
It also shows that Smith’s team is still struggling to find the best way forward after the Supreme Court ruled ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution for essential actions he took as president and presumably immune from all other official acts.
“The administration continues to evaluate the new precedent set last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States,” Smith’s team wrote in the lawsuit.
“While these consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate timetable for parties to report on issues relating to the decision.”
The document notes that Trump’s team did not oppose the request.
Smith proposed that the two parties demonstrate on August 30, rather than Friday. The hearing scheduled for August 16 by Chutkan would also need to be postponed.
Smith faces difficult choices following the Supreme Court’s ruling, including the possibility of reducing the charges filed in the indictment.
The court explicitly barred prosecutors from evaluating Trump’s pressure campaign at the Justice Department, where he planned to install a new attorney general who would investigate his baseless claims of voter fraud.
“Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” the court wrote, adding that the executive branch has “‘absolute discretion’ to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.”
Even Trump’s pressure campaign on former Vice President Pence “involves official conduct,” the court wroteadding that Trump is presumably immune on the matter.
The court also went a step further, writing that “courts cannot investigate the President’s motives,” raising questions about the extent to which these conspiracies can serve as evidence in the case.
Still, some legal observers eager to see Trump prosecuted saw a silver lining in the case, suggesting that Smith call an evidentiary hearing with witnesses to determine which aspects of the indictment cover official acts versus private behavior.
Norm Eisen, who served as the Democrats’ lawyer in Trump’s first impeachment, said such a hearing would serve as a “mini-trial” for Trump and allow the public to better understand the case against him just before the election.
“We should have had a verdict a long time ago, so the least the judicial system can do is give us a mini-trial to – to some extent – expose the charges and offer a determination as to whether they are immune or not,” Eisen previously told The Hill.
In addition to the Justice Department’s own internal deliberations, Smith outlines other challenges in moving the case quickly, noting that Trump’s legal team will not be available the week of September 16, when Trump is scheduled to face sentencing at his secret trial in New York. .
Updated at 7:43 pm EST.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
