WASHINGTON – On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan set a schedule for reviewing whether former President Donald Trump is protected from election conspiracy charges, ensuring that a trial won’t occur before the November elections.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team argued that Chutkan should address the issue of Trump’s immunity before making further decisions in the case. Chutkan’s outlined timeline supports this request, while also considering Trump’s additional challenges to the charges.

The Supreme Court determined in July that Trump is generally considered immune from charges related to his official duties. However, prosecutors argue his actions, which allegedly broke the law in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, are outside this immunity. Trump’s lawyers argue that the indictment pertains to official actions and should therefore be dismissed.

Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, claimed it would be unjust to address immunity prior to resolving other matters, including concerns over the completeness of evidence shared in the case. Chutkan established deadlines, compelling Trump’s team to contest whether they have received all pertinent evidence prior to the immunity discussions.

Lauro suggested that former Vice President Mike Pence’s communications with Trump hold immunity, asserting their inclusion in the indictment could invalidate the entire case.

“We might be confronting an illegitimate indictment right from the start,” Lauro stated.

Lauro pointed out the sensitive timing of the case and urged Chutkan to proceed cautiously with the year-old charges, in order to avoid jeopardizing Trump’s chances in the election by prematurely revealing more incriminating evidence. Nonetheless, Chutkan indicated that the electoral context would not factor into her deadline decisions.

“This court does not consider the electoral timeline,” Chutkan remarked. “That is not something I will take into account.”

Despite this, the dialogue regarding immunity may extend for several months. Chutkan predicts that any decision she makes on dismissing the charges will likely be taken to the Supreme Court, hence she refrained from setting a trial date.

“We are not rushing to the finish here,” Chutkan commented.

Here’s what we have learned about the hearing:

Chutkan establishes deadlines for written submissions on immunity and Smith’s appointment

Chutkan has scheduled dates for prosecutors and defense attorneys to present their written arguments concerning immunity, the appointment of Smith, and the relevant statutes noted in the indictment, despite opposition from Trump’s legal team.

“We can handle multiple matters simultaneously,” Chutkan affirmed.

The deadlines are as follows:

• Sept. 10 for prosecutors to provide all necessary evidence in the case to the defense team. Windom stated during the hearing that this has already been done.
• Sept. 19 for Trump’s team to formally request any additional evidence they believe is missing.
• Sept. 26 for prosecutors to submit a written rebuttal regarding Trump’s immunity.
• Oct. 3 for Trump’s team to file a motion requesting the dismissal of the case, arguing that the statutes are unclear.
• Oct. 17 for Trump’s team to respond to the government’s immunity filing, alongside the prosecutors’ response to Trump’s statutory challenges.
• Oct. 24 for Trump’s team to submit a motion for dismissal based on claims that Smith’s appointment was illegitimate.
• Oct. 29 for prosecutors to reply to Trump’s arguments regarding immunity.
• Oct. 31 for prosecutors to contest Trump’s assertions about the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment.

Smith proposes to present the first argument on immunity, which Trump contests

Typically, the defense begins by seeking to dismiss the case, followed by the prosecution’s response. However, Smith’s team has indicated they would like to file their argument against immunity first, aiming to revive the case, which has been on hold since December during the appeal.

Prosecutor Thomas Windom noted that the government could prepare their argument within three weeks, including evidence such as grand jury transcripts and FBI interviews.

Windom recognized that having the prosecution file their argument first is atypical. However, he believes it could assist the defense by providing them a clear overview of the evidence presented.

“This is not a normal situation,” Windom explained. “The defense will have insight into the full context.”

On the other hand, Lauro firmly disagreed with this approach, claiming it would allow the government to advocate their position before the defense has had a chance to challenge it.

“This is significantly biased against President Trump,” Lauro asserted. “There shouldn’t be special rules for the special counsel.”

Trump’s attorneys assert Pence-related materials dismiss the indictment

The indictment includes references to communications between Trump and Pence, who served as president of the Senate during the congressional proceedings.

During the process of counting the Electoral College votes in the 2020 election, Trump allegedly sought Pence’s assistance to alter the results. The Supreme Court noted that Pence’s situation “raises more complex issues.”

Lauro contended that the Supreme Court determined that the conversations between Trump and Pence were generally considered part of official duties, which could protect Trump from related accusations.

“The whole indictment is invalid,” Lauro asserted. “They’re going to regret that choice, one way or another,” he expressed regarding the prosecutors.

However, Windom disagreed, pointing out that the Supreme Court enabled prosecutors to challenge the presumed immunity.

“This doesn’t automatically mean the indictment will be dismissed,” Windom stated.

Hearing includes light-hearted moments amidst serious discussions

In spite of the serious nature of the hearing, attendees occasionally made light-hearted comments about the heated discussions.

The case was paused because Trump appealed from December until the Supreme Court recently sent it back to Chutkan earlier this month. Chutkan greeted Lauro at the beginning of the session, noting he seemed well-rested, but remarked he “should enjoy it while it lasts.”

The prosecutors and defense lawyers had differing views on how quickly they could submit written arguments in the case. Following Windom’s mention of the defense team filing a 52-page brief just nine days after Trump’s conviction in his New York hush money case, Chutkan praised Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche.

“Well done, Mr. Blanche,” Chutkan complimented.