Judge Tanya Chutkan has set a schedule in the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump that will allow prosecutors to release never-before-seen evidence, such as grand jury transcripts, ahead of the presidential election.
The deadline for the filing from prosecutors is September 26, according to the latest order from the judge, which largely sides with special counsel Jack Smith’s proposed schedule discussed at Thursday’s hearing. Trump’s defense team had sought to delay the public release of evidence in the case until after the November election.
The evidence the prosecutors reveal in late September may not be immediately public, and Chutkan will be able to control its release. It is likely it would become available, though, with potentially some redactions.
This is the one of several filings the judge expects before voters head to the polls. She has not scheduled additional hearings or a trial date.
Chutkan’s scheduling order would allow for her to resolve the immunity issues on a much quicker timeline than the former president proposed, with a deadline for the final round briefs on the immunity matter set for October 29. There is no hearing scheduled on the immunity question in her new order, but she could request oral arguments on the matter later on.
At a hearing focused on scheduling Thursday morning, there was also acknowledgement among the parties and the judge that the scope of Trump’s immunity in the newly revised election subversion case would likely be appealed.
Beyond just the immunity issue, Chutkan’s new order sets deadlines for a number of substantive filings to be submitted before the election. She has set a timeline for Trump’s challenge to the indictment on statutory grounds to be briefed in October. She has also requested that Trump file his challenge to the legality of Smith’s appointment and for the special counsel to respond in late October, with the final brief from Trump on that issue due on November 7, two days after the election.
At Thursday’s scheduling hearing, Chutkan made clear she would not take into account the presidential campaign in crafting the next steps in the case. She rebuffed the defense team’s concerns about the government getting to decide what evidence is aired on the public court record during a “sensitive time” close to the election.
A key disagreement between Trump and the special counsel was which side should file the initial brief on whether the superseding indictment handed up last week comports with the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
Smith’s team said Thursday that they wanted to file an initial brief that would include “substantial exhibits” that would lay out for the judge the context, form and content of relevant evidence in the case – including evidence not in the indictment.
Trump’s lawyers meanwhile were also pushing idea that Chutkan should decide first whether the allegations specific to former Vice President Mike Pence are immunized, with the defense claiming that if they are covered by immunity, the whole case should be dismissed.
Chutkan on Thursday additionally expressed her skepticism to a Trump plan to challenge the indictment on the grounds that Smith was illegally appointed, even as she allowed his team the opportunity to do so.
This story has been updated with additional information.
