Federal Judge Rejects Trump's Argument That Jan. 6 Case Should Be Postponed

WASHINGTON ― The federal judge handling Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 criminal case Thursday rejected his lawyer’s request to postpone proceedings so no new evidence against Trump can come out before the November election.

“This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule,” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan told attorney John Lauro at a hearing. “That’s nothing I’m going to consider.”

Her decision later that afternoon to adopt the schedule proposed by special counsel Jack Smith’s office means that the American public could soon have a better understanding of the evidence he has gathered about Trump’s scheme to remain in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election. Chutkan ordered Smith’s team to file a brief by Sept. 26 laying out the evidence he intends to use at trial and to justify why it is not covered by the Supreme Court’s July ruling giving Trump broad immunity for his “official acts.”

The coup-attempting former president had taken the same strategy from the outset for all his criminal cases: to delay them as long as possible. Should Trump win back the White House, he would be able to order his attorney general to dismiss the federal cases against him, and would likely succeed in getting the state prosecutions against him postponed until he is no longer in office.

Lauro continued those efforts in the Washington, D.C., courtroom Thursday morning, arguing that proceedings right now are especially harmful to Trump. “This process is particularly unfair in the sensitive time that we’re in,” he said.

In a series of combative exchanges, Chutkan questioned Lauro about that tactic. She said the “subtext” of his arguments is to make sure that the proceedings do not “impinge on an election.”

At one point, she chided Lauro for going off on extended soliloquies about how critical the case is for the future of the presidency and the American republic. “I don’t need any more rhetoric on how grave and serious this is,” she said.

“It isn’t rhetoric,” he answered. “It’s legal argument.”

Core to Trump’s claim is the idea that he is immune from prosecution for his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021 ― when a mob of his followers assaulted the U.S. Capitol ― because of a Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer.

The high court two months ago that a president has complete immunity from prosecution for “official” actions, including hiring and firing employees within the executive branch and demanding that they carry out certain instructions.

Smith subsequently presented his case anew to a different federal grand jury, presumably so Trump could not argue that charges against him were based on evidence that the Supreme Court has decided cannot be used against Trump.

But Lauro argued that even the new indictment is fatally flawed because it relies on evidence regarding Trump’s attempts to pressure his own vice president, Mike Pence, into disregarding the results of the Electoral College and awarding Trump a second term in spite of his 2020 election loss.

“Those conversations were immune,” Lauro said, adding that if all of that evidence is ruled inadmissible, it “tanks the entire indictment.”

Chutkan said she did not read the Supreme Court ruling about Pence’s role the way Lauro ― who said he was an “originalist” in how he was reading the majority opinion ― was characterizing it.

“You may be an originalist, Mr. Lauro, but I’m a trial judge, and I have to follow the rules,” she said.

Thomas Windom, a prosecutor in Smith’s office, said his team was prepared to present a brief by Sept. 26 laying out all the evidence it intends to use ― including much that was not included in the indictment ― and explain why it was not protected by presidential immunity.

Lauro, meanwhile, defended Trump’s proposed schedule that would push hearings in the case into the autumn of 2025, with multiple opportunities to appeal the presidential immunity question, potentially freezing the proceedings each time until the appeals court could decide it.

“What is the rush to judgment here?” Lauro complained.

Chutkan pointed out that Trump’s appeals had already consumed nine months. “This case has been pending for over a year. This case is hardly sprinting toward the finish line,” she said.

Smith’s superseding indictment, as it is known, retains the four felony charges from the original 2023 case: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstructing an official proceeding; and conspiracy to deprive millions of Americans of their right to have their votes counted.

It deletes references, however, to Trump’s attempts to coerce Department of Justice officials into falsely claiming that the 2020 election was marred by fraud.

If convicted, Trump could be sentenced to decades in federal prison.

Trump also faces a second indictment based on his coup attempt in Georgia. If convicted on the most serious felony charges, he would face decades in state prison there.

Another, unrelated federal prosecution for his refusal to turn over secret documents he took with him to his South Florida country club upon leaving the White House was dismissed by the trial judge, but that ruling is currently under appeal with an appellate court in Atlanta.

Lauro said in court Thursday that he also plans to ask Chutkan to dismiss the Jan. 6 case on the same grounds that the Florida judge cited: that Smith’s appointment was not legal.

“We have an illegitimate prosecutor, we have an illegitimate indictment,” he said.

Chutkan told him that he was free to file that request, but that she would likely deny it because she is not bound by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling. “Which, frankly, this court doesn’t find very persuasive,” Chutkan added.

In his fourth criminal case, Trump is scheduled to be sentenced in New York City on Sept. 18, after he was convicted on 34 felony counts in May for falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 hush money payment to an adult film actor in the days ahead of the 2016 election. He could receive as much as four years in prison on those charges.

Under the schedule Chutkan released, she is likely to issue a ruling on Trump’s immunity claims under this new indictment in November. If she rules against him, Trump is expected to launch an appeal, which would have to be resolved before the case could move forward.