Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. president Donald Trump participates in a Fox News Town Hall, in Harrisburg, Pa., on Sept. 4.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
In the first court hearing in nearly a year, a lawyer for Donald Trump clashed on Thursday with the judge in the federal election-interference prosecution of the former U.S. president after suggesting the government was rushing forward with an “illegitimate” indictment at the height of the White House campaign.
Prosecutors and defence lawyers are bitterly at odds over the next steps in the case after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the prosecution by ruling that former presidents are entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges. The duelling proposals and testy courtroom exchanges reflected the extent to which the justices’ July opinion had upended the path of the case that charges Mr. Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
“We may be dealing with an illegitimate indictment from the get-go,” said Trump lawyer John Lauro. He added: “We want an orderly process that does justice to the Supreme Court opinion.”
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team filed a revised indictment last week to strip out certain allegations against Mr. Trump for which the Supreme Court said Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, enjoyed immunity. Defence lawyers, however, believe that that indictment did not fully comply with the justices’ ruling.
Mr. Lauro told U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the Supreme Court’s opinion required the outright dismissal of the case, a position the judge made clear she did not accept. He complained that prosecutors were showing a “rush to judgment” with their plans to soon file court papers explaining why the remaining allegations should remain intact.
Justice Chutkan was unmoved on that point as well.
“This case has been pending for over a year,” Justice Chutkan said, referencing the fact that the matter has been frozen since last December while Mr. Trump pursued his immunity appeal. “We’re hardly sprinting to the finish here.” She said it was clear that whatever her ruling, it would be subject to a further appeal.
She also bristled at Mr. Lauro’s reference to the November election, such as when he said: “This process is inherently unfair, particularly during this sensitive time.”
“I understand that there is an election,” the judge replied. “I’ve said before that the electoral process and the timing of the election is not relevant here. The court is not concerned with the electoral schedule.”
Mr. Lauro told Justice Chutkan that the case concerned momentous issues. “We are talking about the presidency of the United States,” he said. Justice Chutkan shot back: “I’m not talking about the presidency of the United States. I’m talking about a four-count indictment.”
She told Mr. Lauro that it appeared the defence was trying to delay the case because of the election. “That’s not going to be a factor I consider at all,” Justice Chutkan said.
Pushing back on the defence’s claims that the special counsel wants to move too quickly, a member of Mr. Smith’s prosecution team noted that Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed a lengthy brief seeking to overturn his New York hush-money conviction and dismiss the case less than two weeks after the Supreme Court’s ruling in July.
“The defence can move comprehensively, quickly and well. So can we,” Thomas Windom said.
The tense exchanges between Mr. Lauro and Justice Chutkan defined the early hearings in the case. But there was a lighter start to Thursday’s session.
At the opening, Justice Chutkan noted that it has been almost a year since she saw the lawyers in her courtroom. Mr. Lauro joked to the judge that “life was almost meaningless without seeing you.”
“Enjoy it while it lasts,” Justice Chutkan said.
The hearing ended without the judge issuing an order about future dates in the case.
Mr. Trump was not in the courtroom and gave an economic speech in New York. A not-guilty plea was entered on his behalf for the revised indictment.
Defence lawyers said they intend to file multiple motions to dismiss the case, including one that piggybacks off a Florida judge’s ruling that said Mr. Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.
Neither side envisions a trial happening before election day, especially given the amount of work ahead. Justice Chutkan is tasked with determining which of the acts alleged in the indictment can remain part of the case in light of the Supreme Court opinion.
The justices in July ruled that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for the exercise of their core constitutional duties and are presumptively immune from prosecution for all other official acts.
Mr. Smith’s team responded to the ruling with a revised indictment last week that removed references to Mr. Trump’s efforts to use the law-enforcement powers of the Justice Department to remain in power, an area of conduct to which the Supreme Court said Mr. Trump is immune.
The case is one of two federal prosecutions against Mr. Trump. The other, charging him with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., was dismissed in July by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. She said Mr. Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.
Mr. Smith’s team has appealed that ruling. Mr. Trump’s lawyers say they intend to ask Justice Chutkan to dismiss the election case on the same grounds.