by On March 4, Donald Trump was set to stand trial in a federal courthouse in Washington DC on criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
But the date, about a month away, has now fallen off the court’s calendar, signaling what has long been expected and what federal prosecutors warned judges would happen: the former president’s efforts to prosecute to avoid criminal prosecution by claiming “presidential immunity”. schedule off track.
It was all but expected. After the federal judge overseeing his case struck down Mr. Trump’s “immunity” defense, his appeal has stalled for the past two months.
Mr Trump or special prosecutor Jack Smith are likely to appeal to the US Supreme Court an appeals court decision on whether Mr Trump can claim “immunity” for crimes allegedly committed while in office , depending on how the court rules. Another appeal will further delay proceedings in an election year in which he is expected to sit in four courtrooms to face 91 criminal charges against the Republican Party’s potential nominee for president.
That window for comments from the appeals court in Washington DC ended on Friday morning.
Without a federal election conspiracy case starting in March, the next date on Mr Trump’s criminal trial calendar could return to New York – where he has already faced two civil trials in the past several months.
Nearly a year ago, a grand jury in Manhattan criminally indicted Mr. Trump for falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.
That trial is penciled in for March 25, although the court in downtown Manhattan has postponed its scheduling until the election conspiracy case. New York Judge Juan Merchan is likely to decide the court’s next move during a pretrial conference on February 15.
Another trial is scheduled to begin on April 2, which would be in the middle of Mr. Trump’s trial, by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is assigned Mr. Trump’s election interference case. During a hearing this week in an unrelated case, she told the court she doubts she will have a trial date on her calendar in March.
In court filings, Mr. Trump’s attorneys claimed that Mr. Smith’s office “never” explains why prosecutors want to stick with the March 4 trial date, which Mr. Trump’s attorneys said has “no talismanic significance.”
Federal prosecutors hinted at the cause between the lines of motions and arguments to the judge. The longer the delay, the more likely the case will drag on well past 2024, creating an unprecedentedly uncomfortable prospect of a president-elect or sitting president being tried. And if Mr. Trump were to win the election, he could order the US Department of Justice to close his case entirely.
Mr Smith told the Supreme Court last year that a case involving “serious” criminal charges requires a “timely resolution” of the issue of “immunity”.
“This case – for the first time in our nation’s history – involves criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office,” wrote lawyers for Mr. Smith’s office.
“[Mr Trump] he is charged with serious crimes because the grand jury followed the facts and applied the law,” they said. “The government is seeking this court’s resolution of the immunity claim so that these charges can be resolved promptly, regardless of the outcome.”
A federal investigation into Mr Trump’s actions in the 2020 election, including a multi-state scheme to overturn the results of states he lost, led to a grand jury indictment last year charging him with conspiracy and obstruction.
Prosecutors argue that then-president Trump relied on knowingly false claims about the election to pressure state officials to approve fraudulent voter slips to block the certification of the results, then tried to convinced his vice president Mike Pence to reject the result, and, ultimately, he failed to stop a crowd of his supporters from breaking into the US Capitol to do it by force.
On December 1, the federal judge overseeing the case swore off his “immunity” defense and ruled that Mr. Trump’s one term in office did not grant him the “divine right of kings” to avoid criminal accountability.
“The United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that job does not provide a lifetime ‘get out of jail’ pass,” Judge Chutkan wrote. “Exposing a former President to federal criminal liability is critical to fulfilling our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law.”
Mr. Trump appealed that decision, and his legal team argued before a three-judge panel earlier this month to overturn Judge Chutkan’s ruling.
Appeals court Judge Florence Henderson, who was appointed by Republican president George W Bush, argued that “it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed allows him to violate the criminal law”.
It is unclear when the appeals court will issue a ruling, which either party will almost certainly appeal, depending on how the court rules.
If the appeals judges dismiss Mr. Trump’s claims, his lawyers could ask for a rehearing by a full panel of appellate judges or take the case to the Supreme Court.
The justices are already planning to consider another major constitutional question related to his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.
On February 8, justices will hear oral arguments in a case that will determine whether he can be disqualified from public office under the scope of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and “participated in rebellion or in rebellion. ” from holding public office.
