The parties were back in court on Thursday for the January 6 election interference case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former and potentially future President Donald Trump. Smith filed a superseding indictment last week, as Mia covered at the time.
Thursday marked the first time that the parties were back before Judge Tanya Chutkan in several months. One of the main takeaways, as Susie Moore at our sister site of RedState covered, is how Chutkan noted that setting a trial date would be an "exercise in futility" given all there is to be sorted out. That being said, Chutkan still noted that that the upcoming election is "not relevant" and she's "not concerned" with the race.
That was a point that Julie Kelly took issue with, noting that Chutkan's "own words and actions contradict that assertion," adding that the judge "attempted to rush the proceedings as soon as the SCOTUS mandate returned to her court--so much so that even Jack Smith had to ask to delay her status report and hearing deadline."
Kelly also posted later on Thursday that Chutkan agreed to Smith's request for setting a schedule to introduce evidence, despite how she herself noted it was "irregular."
The schedule even goes up to November 7, two days past the election.
Chutkan again proves she is lying about the presidential election playing no role in her decision making.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 5, 2024
She packs in months' worth of substantive motions into a few weeks ending with the week of the election.
Trump's lawyers are expected to address SCOTUS opinions in both…
In her thread, Kelly reiterated that "Chutkan again proves she is lying about the presidential election playing no role in her decision making," and that the judge "packs in months' worth of substantive motions into a few weeks ending with the week of the election."
Recommended
One of the factors is the issue of presidential immunity given the U.S. Supreme Court's July 1 decision in Trump v. United States. The Court ruled that the office of the president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution.
Chutkan will have to consider that Trump v. United States ruling when it comes to deciding whether or not Trump's actions surrounding January 6, 2021 were private or carried out in his official capacity as the president, with immunity depending on that determination. The Court said that absolute immunity for actions related to the core powers of a president. There's also a presumption of immunity for other official actions.
In his concurrence for the Trump v. United States, Justice Clarence Thomas also raised the issue of the constitutionality of special counsel appointments. Last week, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) wrote a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appointed Smith, about Smith's "sham indictment," calling it out as "election interference."
As The Hill also noted, when discussing "A challenge to Smith’s authority, and other motions," Chutkan is considering motions that the Trump legal team plans to file when it comes to Smith's appointment:
Chutkan also greenlighted plans from Trump’s team to file a new motion that would challenge the legality and funding of Smith’s appointment.
It’s a legal argument that proved successful in Trump’s Florida-based classified documents case — with Judge Aileen Cannon determining Smith was unlawfully appointed. Smith has appealed the ruling.
...
Smith smiled and laughed at times during the discussion, also whispering with one of his prosecutors who was sitting next to him in the courtroom gallery.
[Trump attorney John] Lauro also said the team plans to raise another Supreme Court decision, Fischer, that limited the use of the obstruction charge prosecutors brought against many Jan. 6 defendants. Trump faces charges under a different section of the same statute.
Trump's Truth Social account also reposted SCOTUS Bulletin's takeaways.
Trump’s Legal Team and Special Counsel Return to Court After Supreme Court Immunity Ruling
— SCOTUS Bulletin (@SCOTUSBulletin) September 5, 2024
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith are set to face off again in U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s courtroom on Thursday, marking their first… pic.twitter.com/IR2Y9qG5Oe
As that post read in part:
Trump’s legal team is expected to argue that the charges against the former president should be dismissed based on several factors. They claim that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment and the funding for his office are unconstitutional. Furthermore, they plan to invoke presidential immunity, asserting that many of Trump’s actions were part of his official duties as president and therefore should be protected.
The Supreme Court’s July ruling provided immunity for any “official acts” performed by a president, and Trump’s lawyers intend to use this to challenge the indictment. They also plan to argue that two charges should be dropped in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that limits the scope of federal obstruction charges.
The Hill is not the only one to have noted Smith's laughter, and it wasn't merely the special counsel who treated the case in such a lighthearted manner, but Chutkan herself as well.
Kelly, who subsequently clarified she meant that cameras were "not allowed," blasted Chutkan as being "in full performance mode" in a series of posts over X.
Kelly also addressed communications between Trump and then Vice President Mike Pence, taking issue with Chutkan's comments.
"At issue is SCOTUS determining those comms with Pence are 'presumptively immune.' Chutkan said she didn't read it that way. (That's what it said)," Kelly noted. "A ruling that Trump-Pence comms are protected under immunity would torpedo the entire indictment," she warned, adding that "those immunized conversations not only are barred from being cited in an indictment, the protected comms cannot be used in any stage of the investigation or prosecution."
Not only is she clearly agitated by SCOTUS immunity ruling, it is unclear whether she even read it.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 5, 2024
On a number of occasions, she argued with John Lauro, Trump's defense attorney, about the elements of the opinion. "That's not how I read it," she said when misinterpreting what…
Chutkan, as I have reported before, was also in full performance mode.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 5, 2024
She made snide comments to generate laughter in the DOJ friendly crowd. She crossed her arms, held up her hand, pointed, and smirked during her back and forth with Lauro.
She took a swipe at Judge Cannon's…
Join the conversation as a VIP Member