Donald Trump has suggested delaying pretrial hearings in his election fraud case until the fall of 2025.
Trump was indicted on four counts of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has pleaded not guilty and has said the case is part of a political witch hunt.
In their latest court submissions, Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche suggested that a large amount of legal arguments must take place in light of the Supreme Court‘s July 1 presidential immunity ruling.
Donald Trump arrives for a town hall campaign event on August 29, 2024, in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Trump’s lawyers are seeking to delay his election fraud trial in Washington, D.C.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
They suggested that the disclosure requests in the case need to be reconsidered before the court even begins to weigh the extent of presidential immunity in the case.
They also suggested that motions should continue until January 2025 with “defense replies in support of motions to dismiss and compel” on January 24, 2025, and “non-evidentiary hearing regarding motions to dismiss and compel” beginning on the week of January 27, 2025, and likely continuing into February.
They then raised the prospect of “additional proceedings, if necessary” in the spring and fall of 2025.
The details were contained in a joint status filing on Friday, in which both the prosecution and defense offered a pre-trial timeline to Judge Tanya Chutkan.
The chief prosecutor, Jack Smith, has long accused Trump’s team of trying to delay the case as long as possible.
In his own section of the joint submission, Smith asked Chutkan to “promote judicial economy” and get through the pre-trial process without undue delay.
Newsweek sought email comment on Monday from Trump’s attorney and Smith’s office.
Smith’s case against Trump had been severely hampered by the Supreme Court’s July 1 decision, which gives presidents broad immunity from prosecution.
As a result, Smith filed a new superseding indictment on August 27 that is nine pages shorter than the original 45-page indictment.
The new indictment focuses much more on Trump’s private acts, rather than acts that might be viewed as being part of his presidential role.
Trump’s lawyers pointed out in their joint status filing that because Smith has issued a new indictment they have the right to challenge its contents anew.
They urged Chutkan not to agree to Smith’s request for an expedited schedule.
“The Special Counsel has no right to preemptively challenge submissions President Trump may make,” their filing states.
“President Trump’s proposed calendar sensibly addresses important threshold matters and, if the case is not dismissed as it should be, facilitates the exchange of essential discovery over the next several months. At the same time, the schedule promotes judicial economy and avoids undue burdens on the separation of powers.
“Given the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, such a course is entirely reasonable. The Court should adopt President Trump’s schedule and reject the Special Counsel’s proposal.”
