Donald Trump’s Jan.6 criminal case returns to DC court
Give him hell, Tanya!
TEXT:
Donald Trump might have landed a handful of legal victories lately, but his Washington DC federal election subversion case is back on track, meaning he might finally have to answer for alleged election interference in a court of law.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump resumed on 2 August after a months-long delay, with proceedings formally transferred from supreme court jurisdiction back to US district judge Tanya Chutkan. One day later, Chuktan rebuffed Trump’s latest effort to toss the case.
The development came about one month after the supreme court ruled that Trump has broad immunity over official acts – things he did in his capacity as president – gutting an allegation that Trump’s efforts to enlist justice department officials in an election subversion scheme were illegal. The return to Chutkan’s court took place just last week because of a 25-day waiting period for any rehearing requests, as well as one other week for the supreme court judgement to be formally sent down, the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell explains.
While this supreme court decision was definitely a blow to Smith’s case, the 6-3 ruling – which, no surprise, fell along ideological lines – outlined categories for criminal liabilities for presidents. Yes, there are the core presidential acts that hold absolute immunity, but there are also official acts that hold presumptive immunity, as well as unofficial acts without any immunity.
Trump is going to have an easier time given the supreme court decision, but prosecutors still have something to work with and Chutkan can now decide how things proceed within this new legal landscape.
On 3 August, Chutkan issued her first ruling since the immunity decision, refusing Trump’s efforts to dismiss this case based on his accusations that Joe Biden pushed prosecutors to target him – purported “elective and vindictive prosecutorial grounds” – and called the legal arguments an “improper reframing”.
Trump’s legal team insisted that Smith’s indictment was based on prosecutors’ theory that it is illegal to dispute the results of an election and work with people to pitch an alternative outcome. Trump also claimed he was prosecuted for speaking out while others were not. But, Chutkan said in her ruling, “that description mischaracterizes his alleged conduct.”
Trump is charged with knowingly making bogus statements in order to promote criminal conspiracies and with obstruction of the election certification processes. Smith’s indictment does not charge Trump for simply disputing the election outcome in public, her ruling noted.
Chutkan pointed to the indictment, which stated that Trump has a right, just like every other American, to say what he wants publicly about the election, and even falsely claim that the election was rigged. Trump, as Chutkan noted, also had the right to formally challenge the results of the election but “through lawful and appropriate means”.
With Trump’s case kicked back to district court and his failed dismissal bid, Chutkan set several deadlines that once again got the ball rolling in this case. She gave both sides until 9 August to confer and file a status report that proposes a schedule for pre-trial proceedings moving forward and suggested they agree to terms as much as possible. If there are disagreements (which, given Trump’s legal track record, are all but certain) both sides can make their arguments in paperwork. She also scheduled a 16 August status conference in the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/trump-election-interference-criminal-case