Jack Smith Tells Judge Chutkan: The Timeline for Trump's Trial is Up to You
In a late-night filing, both prosecutors and Trump's team omitted any discussion of an alternative method that could lead to a quick resolution of the case.
TroibNews 
Special counsel Jack Smith decided not to propose a new timeline on Friday for bringing Donald Trump to trial regarding his attempts to subvert the 2020 election. Instead, he informed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the timeline is entirely at her discretion.
In a joint filing with Trump’s attorneys, which totaled 10 pages, the response addressed Chutkan's request for scheduling guidance following the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity that impacted the case. Smith emphasized that she has the authority to manage the timeline.
“The Court’s decisions on how to manage its docket are firmly within its discretion,” prosecutors noted in the filing submitted late Friday night. They added that they are ready to advance the case “promptly at any time the Court deems appropriate.”
Rather than suggesting a specific timetable, Smith encouraged Chutkan to handle Trump’s numerous dismissal efforts concurrently. According to prosecutors, this approach would help maintain progress in the case.
Smith's hesitance to propose a timeline marks a stark contrast to his previous urgency over the past year, during which he initially charged Trump with multiple conspiracies related to undermining the transfer of power to Joe Biden. Previously, he had requested a swift trial date, and when Trump's immunity claims stalled the trial, he urged the Supreme Court last December for a rapid resolution, calling the situation “extraordinary.”
However, the Supreme Court's refusal to accelerate the case and its ruling in July that provided Trump with significant immunity from key evidence forced prosecutors and the Justice Department to reassess their strategy. This situation is mirrored in New York, where Trump is attempting to leverage the immunity ruling to postpone his sentencing, which is scheduled for September 18, following his May conviction related to hush money. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg chose not to take a stance on Trump’s request for a delay, opting to defer to the judge, similar to Smith's approach in the federal election case.
While Smith did not suggest a new schedule for the election case in Friday’s joint filing, Trump’s defense team presented a specific proposal allowing pretrial motions to extend into January. His lawyers also hinted at additional proceedings that could stretch into 2025. Although they did not put forward a trial date, they declared a trial would be unnecessary because they believe the case will be dismissed.
Earlier this week, Smith’s team secured a revised indictment against Trump, maintaining the same four felony charges but omitting the claim that Trump abused his authority by trying to involve the Justice Department in his efforts to remain in power. This revision aimed to maintain the case while adhering to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
Trump’s lawyers indicated in their part of the Friday filing that, due to the immunity decision, prosecutors will struggle to pursue significant portions of their case, particularly the assertion that Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to disregard the electoral votes confirming Biden's victory.
Should the allegations about Pence be rendered inadmissible, Trump’s lawyers, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, contended that the entire case would collapse.
Neither the prosecution nor the defense mentioned another potential way the case could conclude quickly: if Trump were to win the presidency again in November, he could potentially dismiss the case after taking office in January.
Interestingly, the schedule proposed by Trump’s lawyers would push all discussions regarding the substantive aspects of the prosecutors’ case against him—those charges considered the most serious and politically charged—until after the election. The only filing expected before Election Day would be a motion from Trump contesting the constitutionality of Smith's appointment and claiming that the funding for Smith and his team is illegal.
Chutkan has scheduled a conference for next Thursday to explore the way forward but has exempted Trump from attending. Neither party has proposed any additional hearings in the case before the election.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
In a joint filing with Trump’s attorneys, which totaled 10 pages, the response addressed Chutkan's request for scheduling guidance following the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity that impacted the case. Smith emphasized that she has the authority to manage the timeline.
“The Court’s decisions on how to manage its docket are firmly within its discretion,” prosecutors noted in the filing submitted late Friday night. They added that they are ready to advance the case “promptly at any time the Court deems appropriate.”
Rather than suggesting a specific timetable, Smith encouraged Chutkan to handle Trump’s numerous dismissal efforts concurrently. According to prosecutors, this approach would help maintain progress in the case.
Smith's hesitance to propose a timeline marks a stark contrast to his previous urgency over the past year, during which he initially charged Trump with multiple conspiracies related to undermining the transfer of power to Joe Biden. Previously, he had requested a swift trial date, and when Trump's immunity claims stalled the trial, he urged the Supreme Court last December for a rapid resolution, calling the situation “extraordinary.”
However, the Supreme Court's refusal to accelerate the case and its ruling in July that provided Trump with significant immunity from key evidence forced prosecutors and the Justice Department to reassess their strategy. This situation is mirrored in New York, where Trump is attempting to leverage the immunity ruling to postpone his sentencing, which is scheduled for September 18, following his May conviction related to hush money. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg chose not to take a stance on Trump’s request for a delay, opting to defer to the judge, similar to Smith's approach in the federal election case.
While Smith did not suggest a new schedule for the election case in Friday’s joint filing, Trump’s defense team presented a specific proposal allowing pretrial motions to extend into January. His lawyers also hinted at additional proceedings that could stretch into 2025. Although they did not put forward a trial date, they declared a trial would be unnecessary because they believe the case will be dismissed.
Earlier this week, Smith’s team secured a revised indictment against Trump, maintaining the same four felony charges but omitting the claim that Trump abused his authority by trying to involve the Justice Department in his efforts to remain in power. This revision aimed to maintain the case while adhering to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
Trump’s lawyers indicated in their part of the Friday filing that, due to the immunity decision, prosecutors will struggle to pursue significant portions of their case, particularly the assertion that Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to disregard the electoral votes confirming Biden's victory.
Should the allegations about Pence be rendered inadmissible, Trump’s lawyers, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, contended that the entire case would collapse.
Neither the prosecution nor the defense mentioned another potential way the case could conclude quickly: if Trump were to win the presidency again in November, he could potentially dismiss the case after taking office in January.
Interestingly, the schedule proposed by Trump’s lawyers would push all discussions regarding the substantive aspects of the prosecutors’ case against him—those charges considered the most serious and politically charged—until after the election. The only filing expected before Election Day would be a motion from Trump contesting the constitutionality of Smith's appointment and claiming that the funding for Smith and his team is illegal.
Chutkan has scheduled a conference for next Thursday to explore the way forward but has exempted Trump from attending. Neither party has proposed any additional hearings in the case before the election.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
