The federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump is currently far from trial after a year of small wins and losses for both the prosecution and defense. It has been more than a year since Trump was first charged in the Jan. 6 case by special counsel Jack Smith, and a lot has happened since.
Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trump’s argument of presidential immunity, which triggered an appeal by Trump’s team and paused the case while the appeal played out. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled over the summer that Trump does have immunity from prosecution for official acts while he was president. This led the prosecution to rework their case against Trump and file a superseding indictment.
As of now, the trial is still far off, but two key aspects of how the case will be presented to a jury are unfolding simultaneously.
First, part of the prosecution’s 180-page brief detailing their case against Trump was made public. Smith wants his full filing to be publicly available, including full witness interviews that he would show the jury to support his case.
Trump’s team wants the sealed portion of Smith’s filing to remain under seal until after the election, arguing that its release during early voting creates a concerning appearance of election interference.
Trump’s lawyers plan to release their own filing responding to Smith’s allegations on Nov. 14 and want the judge to release Smith’s documents on the same day. Trump’s team argued that this would allow the press to cover both sides of the case. Chutkan will decide whether the public sees the prosecution’s case against Trump before or after the election.
The second aspect involves Trump’s team actively working to have charges against him dismissed, following the dismissal of obstruction charges against others charged with Jan. 6 offenses.
A Supreme Court ruling over the summer resulted in hundreds of individuals charged with Jan. 6 crimes having obstruction charges dismissed after the court ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) misused the law to charge them.
Now, Trump is looking for the same treatment in his case, citing the Supreme Court’s Fisher ruling in his argument to toss two obstruction charges while still asserting presidential immunity from Smith’s charges.
“Under Fisher, the Office may not use the statute as a catchall provision to criminalize otherwise lawful activities selectively mischaracterized as obstructive by those with opposing political views.” Trump’s lawyers said in a filing. “The superseding indictment stretches generally applicable statutes beyond their breaking point based on false claims that President Trump is somehow responsible for events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”
Smith responded in a filing the week of Oct. 14.
“Contrary to the defendant’s claim…that he bears no factual or legal responsibility for the ‘events on January 6,’ the superseding indictment plainly alleges that the defendant willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol,” Smith said in the filing.
The case has been tumultuous and convoluted, spanning 14 months. Many initially thought it would go to trial by March 2024, but now a jury trial likely won’t begin until at least 2025.
However, what happens on Election Day in November 2024 could dramatically alter this case, as a Trump victory could lead to the dismissal of the entire case.
