The decision is a victory for Trump and his legal team as he will not have to respond to further allegations of election interference right before voters go to the polls.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is giving up on the notion of forcing a “mini-trial” on former President Donald Trump over the January 6 alleged election-interference case anytime before the Nov. 5 presidential election. This means that evidence from potential witnesses like former Vice President Mike Pence won’t be heard until after the election, Bloomberg reported, citing sources “familiar with the matter.”
The hearing would have provided Trump’s political enemies with the opportunity to suggest he tried to improperly change the results of the 2020 presidential election. The decision is an obvious victory for Trump and his legal team as he will not have to respond to further allegations of election interference right before voters go to the polls.
Given this scenario, Smith is opting to revise his case against Trump because of the Supreme Court’s ruling last month on presidential immunity from criminal charges. Smith reportedly believes he could proceed with the case against Trump if Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris wins in November.
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung chose not to comment on Smith’s legal strategy, telling Bloomberg that Trump and his campaign will fiercely oppose legal “witch hunts” that Cheung said should have ended with the Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling has some ambiguity: while acknowledging that former presidents must be granted broad immunity from any prosecution that relates to their performance of official duties, it cannot necessarily be applied to their private conduct. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, who is in charge of the case, is expected to hold hearings to assess what constitutes official and private in Trump’s case.
Smith’s team and Trump’s lawyers are expected to file briefings on Aug. 30 on their priorities before another hearing before Chutkan on Sept. 5. It is possible that Chutkan could strike down Smith’s plans and demand a full hearing before Nov. 5. But, as Bloomberg noted, the judge is more likely to seek common ground.
Smith had once been anxious to proceed with the case and had encouraged the Supreme Court to advise on the constitutionality of presidential immunity. Smith had appeared to be seeking a verdict in the case before election day.
However, when the Supreme Court issued a ruling favorable to Trump and other former presidents, Smith was forced to revise his entire case against Trump. The special counsel filed another case against Trump for mishandling federal documents and obstructing justice, but US District Judge Aileen Cannon later threw out that case, deeming it unconstitutional.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
