Special Counsel Jack Smith managed to notch a win of sorts Tuesday in his D.C. prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
As RedState reported early in September, the U.S. District Court judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, entered a scheduling order in the case that, while clearly not contemplating a trial prior to the November election, called for briefing on the immunity issue prior to November 5 — a move expected to invite added media scrutiny to the case ahead of the election.
As I noted at the time:
From a practical standpoint, this schedule should not affect Trump's campaigning ahead of the election. What it will do, however, is inject into the the media coverage all manner of negative assertions (and innuendos) regarding Trump, the 2020 election, and January 6 — which, for the Dems, is likely the next best thing to actually having the trial take place ahead of the election. Buckle up.
The schedule called for the DOJ to file its brief on Thursday. Ahead of that, the DOJ sought leave to file an "oversized motion" (i.e., a motion longer than the standard 45 pages allotted for such pleadings). Trump's legal team opposed the Government's motion and sought reconsideration of the proposed scheduling. (Whether or not they had a strong legal leg to stand on here, this was appropriate given the anticipated pre-electoral feeding frenzy the DOJ is about to engender six weeks ahead of the election.)
Surprising virtually no one, Judge Chutkan ruled in favor of the DOJ and granted them leave to file a longer pleading, denying Trump's request that she reconsider the briefing schedule and snippily setting forth her rationale in a six-page order Tuesday afternoon.
An 'Exercise in Futility': No Trial Date to Be Set in DC Trump Case
Until Immunity Is Sorted Out
BREAKING: Jack Smith Files Superseding Indictment
Against Donald Trump in 2020 Election Case
Based on the tenor of her order, it's safe to say Chutkan was not enamored with the arguments put forth by Trump's legal team — or of the Supreme Court's ruling on the immunity issue. Below, a sampling:
In remanding this case, the Supreme Court directed this court to conduct a “close” and “fact specific” analysis “of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”
...
Defendant’s argument against the requested page limit expansion comprises a single statement that the Government’s request “would quadruple the standard page limits in this district.” Def.’s Opp’n at 1. The rest of the nine-page opposition rehashes Defendant’s position that immunity briefing should not begin until he files a motion to dismiss several months from now. The court has already addressed the scheduling objections Defendant raised when he was given an opportunity to do.
...
For completeness, however, the court will address more broadly Defendant’s new and sundry arguments about the pretrial schedule, none of which articulate a cognizable prejudice.
...
In response, defense counsel reframed the problem as an “election dispute,” insisting that “it’s incredibly unfair in the sense that they’re able to put in the public record at this very sensitive time in our nation’s history.” Id. at 28–29. But Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule;
I can't claim to speak fluent federal judge, but if I had to, the order reads to me like: That darn SCOTUS asked for this, so that's what they'll get. Oh — does it complicate things politically for the former (and possibly future) president? Too damn bad.
The powers that be opposing Donald Trump aren't getting their fangs into a second pre-election trial, no matter how much they may have hoped to do so. Instead, they'll take the next best option, which is to smear him via court filings to which his opposition isn't due (and won't likely be ready) until several weeks later.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member