Former President and current GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has managed to delay the proceedings in both criminal election interference cases against him — the AG’s case in Fulton County, GA and the DOJ’s case in Washington, DC — so that no trial will take place until after the 2024 election.
Trump’s legal successes so far also include getting the federal classified documents case against him in Florida not merely delayed, but dismissed, by Judge Aileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the bench. (Trump’s not batting 1000 though: in New York in May he was convicted on 34 felony counts in the so-called “hush money” trial.)
But the criminal election-centered cases remain extant, and though the wheels of due process are moving slowly, they are moving.
In Washington, DC, this week, Special Counsel Jack Smith is submitting a 180-page “oversized” brief filled with evidence in the DOJ’s election interference case against Trump.
The reworked brief is an attempt by the prosecution to allow the court to distinguish which pieces of evidence pertain to Trump’s “official acts” and which pertain to non-immune alleged criminal acts.
It’s a distinction that was mandated by the July Supreme Court decision granting immunity to presidents for acts deemed official — and it gives Smith’s side a chance to present evidence before a trial, some of which may be made publicly available, depending on Judge Tanya Chutkan‘s discretion.
[NOTE: Chutkan has vowed to treat the case as if the imminent election is not an infringing factor, having written in allowing Smith’s submission that “what needs to happen before or shouldn’t happen before the election is not relevant here” and that “the Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule.”]
But is there January 6 evidence against Trump that would surprise the public at this juncture? Even after the January 6 Committee’s report and a second Trump impeachment on the implication that he incited the Capitol insurgents?
There is ample reason to believe so, says Politico‘s legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney, an expert on the January 6 proceedings. Perhaps the biggest reason is that Smith was able to interview, under oath, people close to Trump (e.g., Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino) who refused to talk to the January 6 committee, ignoring subpoenas.
Smith took testimony from Mark Meadows, Mike Pence, Pat Cipollone, Dan Scavino and others who either refused to cooperate w the J6 committee or wouldn’t get into key areas because of privilege. So the potential for new info is high — if it becomes public.https://t.co/sITnPMc0fh
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2024
In other cases like that of Pat Cipollone, a witness was permitted to give the committee only a truncated version of their story in exchange for their cooperation. Smith presumably heard more.
Cheney told The New Republic: “Jack Smith certainly got past the committee and into areas that are probably the most sensitive and potentially explosive.”