Prosecutor Molly Gaston wrote that "the government continues to assess the new precedent" set by the high court, but that it "has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision."
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan has agreed to a three-week delay in the January 6 case against former President Donald Trump. Prosecutors for Special Counsel Jack Smith said they needed more time to assess the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in July that presidents do possess immunity for official actions taken in office, the Washington Post reported. Trump had called the Supreme Court's ruling “total exoneration”
Chutkan had initially set a Friday deadline to establish ground rules for the future, including a hearing on Aug. 16 to assess the full implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling, but Smith’s team had requested an extension until Aug. 30 in order to prepare a schedule for future proceedings and asked for a future hearing in September. The judge approved the delay with a new hearing date set for Sept. 5. Trump’s lawyers did not object to the extension.
In a two-page memo to Chutkan, prosecutor Molly Gaston, representing Smith’s office, wrote that “the government continues to assess the new precedent” set by the high court, including through internal Justice Department consultations, but that it “has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision.”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has questioned the legitimacy of Smith's appointment as special counsel and whether the position is “established in law.” President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice has threatened to continue to target Trump even if he becomes president again.
Chutkan will have to decide whether Trump’s objections to the legitimacy or legality of the 2020 election are still able to be prosecuted. Any trial would likely start after the election because the judge’s decision is expected to end up at the Supreme Court.
The prosecution’s case against Trump rests on the assumption that the 2020 election results were valid and the charge that Trump used knowingly false claims to challenge those results.
The Supreme Court handed the case back down to Chutkan after its decision to answer three questions: which of Trump’s alleged actions are covered by presidential immunity; which are official but still subject to prosecution because the alleged acts weren’t integral to his presidential powers; and what alleged actions were conducted outside of the office of the presidency?
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments