A federal judge declared at a court hearing on Thursday that she would not let former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign for the White House affect the schedule of the criminal case in which he stands accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
Hours later, the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, fulfilled that vow by setting a schedule for the matter that moved speedily ahead and opened the possibility that prosecutors could make public more of the evidence they hope to use against Mr. Trump at trial in a court filing before Election Day.
Judge Chutkan also established a series of deadlines for filings from both sides to assess the impact of several legal issues on the case, including the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting Mr. Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions he took as president.
After an occasionally tense proceeding in Federal District Court in Washington, Judge Chutkan set a date of Sept. 26 for prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, to submit an opening brief to her on the question of immunity. In that brief, prosecutors intend to set out the evidence they plan to use at trial and arguments for why none of that material — or any of the allegations in their newly revised indictment of Mr. Trump — is subject to the standards set for presidential immunity by the Supreme Court.
The brief is likely to include some evidence that goes beyond what was made public in the indictment, though portions of it could be redacted because of grand jury secrecy rules.
The hearing in Washington was held to discuss next steps in the case, which had been in limbo for nearly eight months as Mr. Trump pursued his claims to be immune from the election interference charges all the way to the Supreme Court.
The court ruled in his favor in July, granting him some immunity for charges arising from certain official acts as president. The justices also ordered Judge Chutkan to undertake the complicated task of sorting through a newly revised indictment and deciding which of its many allegations need to be tossed out under the immunity decision and which can survive and go to trial.
In her brief order, Judge Chutkan told Mr. Trump’s lawyers to respond to the government’s submission about immunity by Oct. 17. She also told them to finish making their arguments for why they need more discovery information from the government by Sept. 19.
The hearing — and Judge Chutkan’s order — showcased yet again how the defense and prosecution have been at loggerheads over the issue of timing nearly from the start of the case.
Thomas P. Windom, one of Mr. Smith’s deputies, opened the proceeding by suggesting a deadline of the end of September for the government’s arguments on why the entire revised indictment should be able to withstand the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Mr. Windom noted that the brief would likely contain new information, like F.B.I. interviews with witnesses, that would bolster the government’s contention that Mr. Trump was not acting in his official capacity when he sought to reverse his loss to Joseph R. Biden Jr., but was rather acting in his private role as a candidate for office.
John Lauro, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, argued that any debate about immunity should be pushed off until at least December, after the election, while the defense sought to attack the case on separate grounds.
When Judge Chutkan pushed Mr. Lauro on why he wanted to delay the discussions of immunity, he acknowledged he was concerned that some of the new information about Mr. Trump that the government wanted to include in its court papers could be made public at a “sensitive time,” in what seemed to be reference to the election.
That prompted Judge Chutkan to assert that the timing of the election was “not relevant” to the court proceeding.
“I am definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute,” she said.
Mr. Lauro also suggested during the hearing that Judge Chutkan should put off a factual debate about immunity and first consider some issues related to the subject on a purely legal basis. He pointed in particular to issues surrounding Mr. Trump’s pressuring of former Vice President Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role at the congressional proceeding to count Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, to disrupt the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.
Mr. Lauro contended that Judge Chutkan should find that Mr. Trump’s conversations with Mr. Pence were subject to immunity and could not be part of a criminal case without illegally impinging on a president’s authority.
If so, he claimed, then the entire indictment should be thrown out because that would mean the grand jury had been improperly exposed to evidence about the two men’s dealings when it approved the charges.
Mr. Smith’s prosecutors contend that Mr. Trump’s discussions with Mr. Pence are not subject to immunity. But even if that assessment is wrong, Mr. Windom said, the indictment could still survive if a court decides all the other evidence the grand jury heard was by itself a sufficient basis for the charges.
Judge Chutkan’s order did not limit the special counsel to discussing only legal issues about Mr. Pence, leaving Mr. Smith free to submit the more fulsome factual filing that his team had proposed. Prosecutors had suggested making their arguments in a single brief so that there would be only one appellate fight over the matter.
Both sides and Judge Chutkan appeared to agree that however she ruled on the issues related to immunity, it would be appealed again to the Supreme Court — bringing more delays.
The hearing opened with a brief re-arraignment of Mr. Trump, who was not in the courtroom but in New York campaigning. Through Mr. Lauro, Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty to the revised indictment.
While the specific charges were the same as in the original indictment, some parts — particularly evidence about Mr. Trump’s attempts to strong-arm the Justice Department into backing his claims of election fraud — were removed. Other parts of the charges were tweaked to reframe them as examples of what prosecutors have called private “electioneering activity.”
Separately, Mr. Lauro said that he intended to file a motion claiming that the case should be thrown out because Mr. Smith had been improperly appointed as special counsel. Two months ago, Judge Aileen M. Cannon used the same legal argument to dismiss Mr. Trump’s other federal case — the one in which he stands accused in federal court in Florida of holding on to dozens of highly sensitive classified documents after he left office.
In her order, Judge Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, set a deadline of Oct. 24 for Mr. Lauro to make a formal request to file the motion about Mr. Smith’s appointment.
But Judge Chutkan remarked during the hearing that she did not find Judge Cannon’s ruling “particularly persuasive” and pointed out that there was binding precedent that special prosecutors are in fact lawful from the federal appeals court that oversees her in Washington.
Mr. Lauro sought to defend his plans to challenge Mr. Smith’s appointment by arguing that Justice Clarence Thomas had questioned how Mr. Smith had gotten his job in a concurrence to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
At one point, Mr. Lauro said that Justice Thomas had “directed” Mr. Trump’s legal team to pursue the motion. But he quickly amended himself, saying only that the justice had raised the issue in his concurrence.
Still, Judge Chutkan interrupted him before he made his correction, asking archly, “He directed you to do that?”
And sitting silently in the courtroom watching the proceedings, Mr. Smith seemed to share the judge’s reaction, nodding emphatically.
The post Judge Says Trump’s Campaign Is ‘Not Relevant’ to Timing of His 2020 Case appeared first on New York Times.
