Prosecutors Try to Nudge Trump Election Case Ahead Despite Freeze on the Case

There seemed to be little room for maneuver last week when the federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s indictment on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election put the case on hold as an appeals court considered Trump’s claims that he was immune from prosecution.

The decision by the judge, Tanya Chutkan, effectively froze the matter, suspending all of its deadlines and imperiling the start date for the trial, which is scheduled to begin March 4 in U.S. District Court in Washington.

But even the force of the judge’s order has not quite managed to keep prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, from seeking to nudge the case forward — or to stop Trump’s lawyers from complaining about their efforts.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

On Monday evening, prosecutors working for Smith notified Chutkan that they had sent Trump’s legal team a draft list of exhibits that they intend to use at the trial. They acknowledged, however, that the deadline to submit the list had been “held in abeyance.”

The exhibit list had been given to the defense, the prosecutors wrote, “to help ensure that trial proceeds promptly if and when” the case was back in action.

Hours later, not long before midnight, Trump’s legal team responded to the government’s submission with an outraged two-page filing to Chutkan complaining about how prosecutors had “improperly and unlawfully attempted to advance this case” in violation of the pause.

The lawyers told Chutkan that prosecutors had not merely sent them the offending exhibit list but had also illicitly turned over thousands of pages of additional discovery materials.

Their filing contained a copy of an email that John Lauro, one of Trump’s top lawyers, had written to two of Smith’s lead deputies, Thomas Windom and Molly Gaston.

In the email, Lauro, in politely biting terms, accused the special counsel’s office of simply ignoring Chutkan’s order in an effort “to rush this case to an early and unconstitutional trial.” He put his foot down, telling the prosecutors that the defense would not “accept or review the present production or any additional productions” of discovery materials “until and unless the court lifts the stay order.”

It remains unclear what Chutkan might do about the spat beyond reminding everyone involved that they are not supposed to be moving pieces on the chessboard while the game has been put on hold. She could in theory hold anyone who violates her order in contempt but is more likely to ask both sides to play nice with each other in the interim.

Whatever course she takes, the tug of war between the parties reflects how seriously both of them feel about the timing of the election interference case.

Smith’s team has been pressing to hold the trial before the heart of the 2024 campaign season begins this summer, hoping to avoid a head-on collision between the legal proceeding and a presidential election in which Trump is a leading candidate.

Trump’s lawyers are pulling every lever they can to delay the trial for as long as possible. If the proceeding can be put off until after the election and Trump were to win the race, he would have the power to order the charges against him to be dropped.

At the center of that struggle is Trump’s argument that he is immune from the election interference charges because they arose from actions he took while he was in office.

A few weeks ago, Chutkan rejected those claims, and Trump challenged her decision in front of a federal appeals court in Washington. Smith then asked the Supreme Court to consider the issue directly in a move designed to speed up the appeal. He also prevailed on the lower appeals court to hear the question on an expedited parallel track.

Both challenges will advance this week as Trump’s lawyers file papers — due Wednesday — to the Supreme Court in an effort to keep the justices from taking up the case.

On Saturday, Trump’s legal team is scheduled to file its formal brief on the immunity issue to the federal appeals court.

c.2023 The New York Times Company