Federal prosecutors led by Special Counsel Jack Smith have made a new filing before federal Judge Tanya Chutkan opposing a request from Donald Trump for a wide-ranging halt to proceedings on his January 6-related criminal case while an appeal moves forward elsewhere.
In the appeal, Trump continues to push the argument he holds wide-ranging legal immunity covering his time as president that should be held to block these criminal charges. The immunity claimed by Trump covers everything he did within the so-called outer perimeter of his presidency and uniformly blocks legal consequence absent an impeachment and accompanying Senate conviction over contested conduct — an approach for which prosecutors have said there’s no support in legal precedent.
And in the slightly longer term, prosecutors are also pushing for the scheduled beginning of Trump’s trial in this case — March 4 — to remain on track. The new filing outlines a range of possible disputes that prosecutors say can still move forward before Chutkan while Trump’s appeal of the presidential immunity question is considered, something prosecutors insisted should be held to only halt action on aspects of the case directly related to it. The protections that did stem from the appeal are already in force, making an order from Chutkan formalizing any halt to proceedings — whether limited or more expansive — unnecessary, the government added in court.
“During the pendency of the appeal, any number of matters could arise in this case that are not involved in the appeal; the Court should not enter an order preventing it from handling them. Furthermore, the Court should maintain the March 4 trial date,” Smith’s team said, adding: “To help ensure that trial proceeds promptly if the Court’s order is affirmed, during the pendency of the defendant’s appeal, the Government will meet every pretrial deadline the Court has set for it.” Some of the examples of matters that prosecutors say remain able to move forward amid Trump’s immunity appeal at a higher judicial level include the gag order recently upheld in large part by an appeals court, which blocks certain statements from Trump about case witnesses.
