Trump Lawyers: Jack Smith 'Unlawfully Attempted to Advance' D.C. Election Case Despite Court-Ordered Pause – The Messenger
Attempts by federal prosecutors to provide Donald Trump with discovery material violate a court-order halt to progress in the Washington, D.C. election-subversion case, attorneys for the former president argued in a court filing Monday night.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last Wednesday ordered a temporary halt to any further proceedings that would move the election-subversion case against Trump toward trial.
In the order, Chutkan said she does not have jurisdiction over the case while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considers Trump's appeal of his denied motion seeking to dismiss the charges against him on grounds including a claim of 'presidential immunity' from criminal charges.
"Consequently, the court agrees with both parties that Defendant’s appeal automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant," Chutkan wrote in a three-page order.
In their filing Monday night, Trump's legal team said Special Counsel Jack Smith's office "improperly and unlawfully attempted to advance this case by serving thousands of pages of additional discovery, as well as a 'draft exhibit list'" on the former president's defense team.
"Such maneuvers are exactly what the Stay Order forbids, and impose a significant and prohibited burden on President Trump," his lawyers wrote. "President Trump has an incontrovertible and inviolable right to be free from the burdens of this litigation during his appeal."
Trump's legal team said in the filing that "neither he nor counsel will review the prosecution’s unlawful productions until and unless the Court lifts the Stay Order."
The special counsel's office flagged to Chutkan earlier Monday that it had delivered its exhibit list to the Trump lawyers in time with the deadline she'd previously set on the matter before last week's order pausing her role in the case. Smith's team acknowledged in their filing that the case is on hold but turned over the material "to help ensure that trial proceeds promptly if and when the mandate returns" putting Chutkan back in control of the Trump proceedings.
Trump is charged with four federal felonies in the case alleging he obstructed the 2020 presidential election and has pleaded not guilty to all charges. His trial in Washington, D.C. is scheduled to begin the day before Super Tuesday on March 4, though the appellate reviews on Trump's immunity argument could lead to delays.
Trump's appeal centers on Chutkan's 48-page order on Dec. 1 denying Trump's motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that he couldn't be charged for actions he took within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties as president. The Constitution’s text, structure, and history, Chutkan wrote in her order, "do not support that contention."
In the same Dec. 1 order, Chutkan denied the former president's argument that the prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment's "double jeopardy" clause because Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment trial.
Trump's legal team responded to Chutkan's denial by filing both an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking reconsideration of the motion to dismiss charges and a motion to "stay," or pause, the proceedings in the case "pending the final resolution of his recently filed appeal."
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 9, 2024 on the appeal.
The three-judge panel hearing arguments will consist of Circuit Judges Karen Henderson, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan. Henderson was appointed by former President George H. W. Bush, while Childs and Pan were appointed by President Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to an expedited review of whether to take up the case and rule the appeal following a petition filed by Smith's office, but has not yet decided whether to do so.
The high court ordered Trump's legal team to file arguments by Dec. 20, after which it is expected to decide whether to grant Smith's petition.