politico archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PS7WH
see also: https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-politics/ap-supreme-court-moving-quickly-will-decide-if-trump-can-be-prosecuted-in-election-interference-case/ | thehill archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/W6bFe
Excerpts (politico):
In Wednesday’s order, the Supreme Court granted Trump’s emergency request to maintain that pause while the justices hear Trump’s immunity appeal.
But the court’s decision to keep the pretrial proceedings frozen is a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s effort to bring Trump to trial this year. Smith has charged Trump with four felonies stemming from his bid to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
If they deny the immunity bid by the end of their term in June, it may still be possible for the trial judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, to schedule a trial to begin in late summer or fall.
The timing of the justices’ eventual ruling could be critical since Chutkan has vowed to give Trump roughly three additional months to prepare for trial if the case is returned to her courtroom.
That hypothetical schedule would guarantee that much of Trump’s general election calendar is consumed by his mandatory presence in the courtroom, perhaps overlapping with the Republican National Convention or even Election Day itself.
Chutkan had originally intended to begin the election-subversion trial on March 4, but she nixed that start date due to the delays caused by Trump’s immunity claim. The trial, if it happens, is expected to last several months.
Excerpts (thehill):
That timetable is much faster than usual, but assuming the justices deny Trump’s immunity bid, it’s not clear whether a trial can be scheduled and concluded before the November election. Early voting in some states will begin in September.
In the end, the timing of a possible trial could come down to how quickly the justices rule. They have shown they can act fast, issuing a decision in the Watergate tapes case in 1974 just 16 days after hearing arguments. The decision in Bush v. Gore came the day after arguments in December 2000.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Though their Supreme Court filing did not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as the Republican primary front-runner, prosecutors described the case as having “unique national importance” and said that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.”
They know exactly what they are doing.
Msnbc’s Alex Wagner pointed out on her show that, “After all, it took just 51 days from the time Trump was kicked off the ballot in Colorado on December 19th to when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for that case – the 14th Amendment case – on February 8th. Now on December 11th, 2023, Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to quickly weigh in on Trump’s immunity appeal and to do so early , which the Court rejected! And now by the time we get to April 22nd, which is when the Court plans to hear arguments in this immunity case, it will have been 133 days since the Court was first asked to hear the appeal. So the pace is… curious? Around 50 days when it helps Donald Trump, and over 130 days when it doesn’t.”
In addition to the delay, the court asked for arguments to an over-broad question:
“Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Note that they COULD have asked something more like, “Were Donald Trump’s actions on and surrounding the January 6th incidents official acts of a President and is Trump therefore immune from criminal prosecution because the conduct was both within his tenure in office and within the scope of his duties?” Of course, that is not what was asked. The actual question asks for long and careful considered speculation on all possible contingencies where the relevant case is about a specific set of actions that could be quickly assessed.
see also: https://www.salon.com/2024/02/28/the-is-indulging-immunity-claim-further-delaying-his-trial/
"But the court’s decision to keep the pretrial proceedings frozen is a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s effort to bring Trump to trial this year. "
I hate it when the media does this. It makes it read as if Jack Smith is the one with the issue. Jack Smith represents “the people” i.e. US citizens. I suggest:
“But the court’s decision to keep the pretrial proceedings frozen is a blow to US voters who may use the trial results to determine how they will vote. Trump is accused of attempting to disenfranchise voters by inspiring a mob of his supporters to invade the capitol on January 6, 2021, attempting to hang Vice President Pence on the gallows they constructed and delay the vote count. While this type of trial will always take time to run its course, the court has now introduced additional delay in order to determine if the US has a president or a king but will likely result in no trial before the election.”
