The final grand jury indictment of Trump’s actions against the Justice Department for personal gain and not as president for the purpose of governing – a Washington university law professor says he is prepared to go to trial
Lawyers for the Justice Department and former President Donald Trump are set to appear in federal court in Washington on Thursday for what could be the final hearing in his election interference case before the November election.
This year, voters will decide the race for the presidency — and, by extension, whether Trump will ever face justice on charges that he led overlapping conspiracies to try to cling to power.
A D.C. grand jury indictment accused Trump of actions that culminated in the violent siege at the U.S. Capitol in early 2021. If he regains the White House, Trump is expected to direct new Justice Department leaders to drop the landmark case.
In July, the high court’s conservative supermajority afforded Trump blanket immunity for his interactions with the Justice Department and concluded he had “presumptive” immunity for other kinds of official acts. The president’s actions for personal gain deserve no legal shield, the court said.
Prosecutors are prepared to file a long motion within three weeks, if necessary, to support their contention that Trump acted as a political candidate for personal gain and not as president for the purpose of governing, Windom said.
“Resolving the court’s decision and how it applies to each small item of evidence at a trial isn’t easy”, said George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason.
The judge directed Trump and the special counsel team to identify what areas they agree on in order to proceed. They had a late-night court filing the Friday before Labor Day weekend, showing that there was no common ground.
Prosecutors said they want to start with the core issue of presidential immunity. They’ve signaled they believe the immunity described by the Supreme Court majority “does not apply” to the new indictment or to “additional unplead categories of evidence the Government intends to introduce at trial and will proffer in its brief.”
“There could be many accusations coming out about what’s the proof at trial if Chutkan agrees,” said the law professor.
The Superseding Indictment: Defending Mike Pence in the Decree of the 2021 Count in Washington, D.C.
Attorney General Garland said the superseding indictment is an attempt to respond to instructions from the Supreme Court regarding how to effectuate a new indictment in an ongoing case. “The special counsel is required by the regulations to follow the policies of the Justice Department, including the election sensitivities policies, and I’m quite confident he did so.”
It is likely that the biggest legal battle will focus on the role Mike Pence played during his time in office. Trump is accused of pressuring Pence to delay the electoral count on Jan. 6, 2021, as a mob yelled, “hang Mike Pence” outside the Capitol building.
The prosecutors pointed out that the defendants had no official responsibilities, but that they had a personal interest in being named as a candidate for president of the Senate.
The case already had been on pause for more than eight months while the Supreme Court weighed whether Trump and future presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution for their official acts in the White House.
How to draw those lines will be up to Chutkan, a former public defender who’s sought to move the case past numerous legal and logistical pitfalls. She will not get to face her accuser before November and there is little chance for a trial after that.
This year’s election calendar is concerning the case. The courthouse in D.C is only steps away from the site of a protest at the U.S. Capitol three years ago. He delivered the speech to the Economic Club of New York.
His lawyers worried about what sort of evidence prosecutors might make public in the coming weeks, because it was a very sensitive time in our nation’s history.
Chutkan: Trump’s case against a candidate without a political calendar is not a doorway to a better understanding of the facts
But Chutkan flatly rejected the idea that the political calendar, or Trump’s position on the ballot as the Republican nominee for president, should play any role in her decisions.
He questioned the notion that the lawyers for Trump needed months to reply to the Supreme Court decision, pointing out the same attorneys filed a 52page brief in New York against Trump a short time later.
The allegations of the Vice President, whether he deserved immunity or not, are agateway issue that should be decided immediately, according to Trump attorney Lauro. He said if grand jurors heard evidence about Pence, and those allegations are protected by immunity, the entire indictment should be dismissed as tainted.
It’s up to her whether she calls for an in-person proceeding to hear from witnesses directly, or whether she chooses to unseal FBI witness interviews and grand jury testimony.