A delaying strategy that seems to be working
Trump’s delay strategy appears to be working
The schedules for Donald Trump’s criminal trials are still coming into focus, but one thing seems clear: his strategy of seeking a delay is paying off.
The Supreme Court handed him a victory of sorts yesterday by deciding to adopt his long-standing argument: that he is virtually immune from prosecution for any actions he has taken while in office. The practical effect was to delay the start of his federal trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election by at least several months. Whether the process can start before Election Day remains uncertain.
When Trump was indicted last year in New York, Florida, Washington and Georgia, it appeared he would spend much of 2024 before a jury. If events unfold now, he could face only one trial before the November election.
Tomorrow the timetable for another case will become clear. Judge Aileen Cannon will set a new date for the start of Trump’s trial on federal charges of mishandling classified documents after he left the White House and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them. That trial was originally scheduled to begin on May 20, but the judge has indicated she is inclined to make some “reasonable adjustments” to the timing.
Trump’s legal team has in the past asked for the trial to be postponed until after the election. And the former president will be in court tomorrow in Fort Pierce, Florida, to hear whether Cannon, whom he appointed near the end of his term, will go along.
The timing of a third criminal case facing Trump is also in flux. That case in Georgia, where Trump is accused of trying to undermine his 2020 election loss in the state, is embroiled in a preliminary investigation that is now focusing on an attempt by the former president and some of his co-defendants to disqualify the election. prosecutor who filed the case.
It now appears that Trump could potentially head to Election Day with just one of the four processes completed. In that case, a state judge in Manhattan set a March 25 start date for Trump’s trial in connection with hush money payments he made to a porn star in an effort to prevent a scandal on the eve of the 2016 election.
The Supreme Court weighs in
By deciding to adopt Trump’s immunity claim — a legal theory rejected by two lower courts and one that few experts say has any basis in the Constitution — the Supreme Court has at least bought the former president several months before a trial over the accusations of election interference could take place. get started.
It is not excluded that he could appear before a jury in the case at the Federal District Court in Washington before Election Day. Right now, the legal calendar suggests that if the justices rule before the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June and determine that Trump is not immune from prosecution, the trial could still begin in late September or October.
But each delay increases the likelihood that voters won’t get a chance to hear evidence that Trump tried to undermine the last election before deciding whether to support him in the current election.
If Trump succeeds in delaying the trial until after Election Day and wins, he could use the powers of his office to try to dismiss the election interference charge altogether. Furthermore, Justice Department policy precludes prosecution of a sitting president, meaning that once he is sworn in, the federal trial he faces could very likely be postponed until after he leaves office.
On the face of it, last night’s Supreme Court ruling was a purely logistical decision. The judges decided to suspend trial preparations while they reviewed a lower court’s rejection of the immunity defense. They set a hearing on the matter the week of April 22.
In practical terms, however, the court’s decision delayed the process of resolving the immunity debate, confirming what appeared to be a last-ditch move by Trump’s legal team to find a way to push a trial date further and further out. set.
The election interference case in Washington should have been the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to go before a jury. Months ago, the judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, chose March 4 as a trial date.
But then Trump filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that he had immunity from the charges because they stemmed from actions he committed as president. Although the claim had no precedent and violated basic legal and constitutional principles, it had a powerful appeal to Trump’s lawyers: Once the claim was filed, Judge Chutkan had to put the underlying case on hold until the issue of immunity had been resolved.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Washington weighed in on the issue, rejecting the immunity defense in a unanimous and scathing ruling that found Trump was subject to federal criminal law like every other American.
He then asked the Supreme Court to stay the trial while the justices decided whether to take up the issue, perhaps hoping less that the justices would agree with him on the merits of his claims than that they would review the case. would take over. ask questions and take the time to make a decision.
And that is exactly what the court did.
The question of when the trial will ultimately take place is complicated by Judge Chutkan’s insistence that Trump waste no time preparing for the proceedings as long as the pause in the case remains in effect. She has suggested in court papers that the former president, in the spirit of fairness, should have an extra day to prepare for anyone lost to the stay.
Judge Chutkan froze the election case on December 13. That means that, if she sticks to her decision, she will owe Trump an additional 82 days of preparation time – equivalent to the period between December 13 and the originally scheduled trial date of March 4. If the Supreme Court rules on the immunity decision in June and trial preparations resume immediately, the additional 82 days could push a trial date back to September.
At that point, the general election campaign would be in full swing, and there would be no guarantee that the process could be completed before Election Day.
Your questions
We ask readers what they want to know about the Trump cases: the indictment, the proceedings, the key players or whatever. You can submit your question to us by completing this form.
Is it possible that Trump will be on trial in two places at the same time? —George More, New Suffolk, New York.
Alan: It’s really not possible. Although suspects in criminal cases may be allowed to miss hearings here and there, they are generally expected to be present once the trial starts. That’s why there has been so much tension about when the trials will take place and how to fit them all onto the calendar, not only in relation to each other, but also against the backdrop of the rapidly approaching presidential election.
Where is each criminal case?
Trump is at the center of at least four separate criminal investigations, at both the state and federal level, into matters related to his business and political career. Here’s where each case currently stands.