Prosecutors, Trump’s lawyers clash in court over next steps in election interference case

Prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed in court Thursday over the next steps in the federal election interference prosecution of Donald Trump in the first hearing since the Supreme Court narrowed the case by ruling that former presidents are entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges.

The sides’ dueling proposals reflected the extent to which the justices’ July opinion had upended the path of the case that charges Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Moving to salvage the case, special counsel Jack Smith’s team filed a new indictment that stripped out certain allegations against Trump for which the Supreme Court said he enjoyed immunity from prosecution.

A member of that team, Thomas Windom, said Thursday that prosecutors were prepared to file within three weeks a legal brief explaining why the new indictment was sound. But defense lawyer John Lauro said the special counsel “proposes a device which turns the criminal rules on its head” by seeking to submit a filing before the defense has had a chance to try to dismiss the indictment.

“We may be dealing with an illegitimate indictment from the get-go,” Lauro said. He added: “We want an orderly process that does justice to the Supreme Court opinion.”

As the hearing opened, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan noted that it has been almost a year since she saw the lawyers in her courtroom. The case has been frozen since last December as Trump pursued his appeal on immunity grounds.

Lauro joked to the judge that “life was almost meaningless without seeing you.”

“Enjoy it while it lasts,” Chutkan said.

Trump, the Republican nominee for president, was not present. A not-guilty plea was entered on his behalf for the revised indictment.

Defense lawyers said they intend to file multiple motions to dismiss the case, including one that piggybacks off a Florida judge’s ruling that said Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.

Neither side envisions a trial happening before the November election, especially given the amount of work ahead. 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.

Smith’s team responded to the ruling with a revised indictment last week that removed references to Trump’s efforts to use the law enforcement powers of the Justice Department to remain in power, one of the areas of conduct for which the Supreme Court said Trump is immune.

The case is one of two federal prosecutions against 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 Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.

Smith’s team has appealed that ruling. Trump’s lawyers say they intend to ask Chutkan to dismiss the election case on the same grounds.

Tucker, Durkin Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.