Jack Smith seeks additional time to assess next steps in Jan. 6 Trump prosecution
Despite what initially appeared to be a sense of supreme confidence that his lawfare campaign against former President Donald Trump would pave the way to a certain Democratic Party victory in November, special counsel Jack Smith has encountered one obstacle after another in recent months.
Now, as The Hill reports, Smith has requested a grant of additional time in order to determine how best to proceed with his federal election interference case against Trump in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity, which cast doubt on the viability of significant parts of his original indictment.
Smith's SCOTUS setback
In the wake of the high court's decision granting Trump at least some immunity for acts deemed to have been conducted as part of his “official” duties in office, Smith has been forced to carefully assess how he wishes to move forward against the former president.
Now that the matter has been officially returned to the jurisdiction of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan following, the parties have been asked for their positions on how the case should resume.
Smith has since asked for a three-week halt to a series of impending deadlines, doing so despite the urging of some who hoped for an evidentiary hearing and witness testimony in the case before the general election on Nov. 5.
In asking for the delay, Smith's team wrote, “The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States.”
The filing continued, “Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision.”
Preferred schedule derailed
Though Chutkan herself had aimed for trial in this case to commence back on March 4, subsequent appeals resulted in a series of delays, with the Supreme Court's recent ruling all but ensuring that proceedings will stretch far beyond November.
As the Associated Press noted earlier this summer, the high court did not dismiss Smith's indictment of Trump, but the outcome did force Smith to contemplate substantial adjustments to the charges due to the necessary judicial evaluation of whether the conduct at issue was “official” or “private” in nature and what sort of protections might apply.
The new rounds of fact-finding made necessary by the high court's ruling will be no small feat, particularly in terms of resolving open questions in time for trial to begin ahead of the general election.
This is especially true, given the likelihood that Chutkan's ruling on any of the questions implicated by the Supreme Court's analysis are subject to appeal.
Any hope Smith may have had of bringing Trump to trial this year in the separate classified documents case in Florida were scuttled when Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the matter back in July, declaring that the special counsel's appointment to the role was unconstitutional.
Trump weighs in
Attorneys for Trump in the election interference case did not object to Smith's request for the three-week delay, and it is clear from the former president's recent social media commentary that he believes the Supreme Court ruling to have caused a sea-change in terms of the legal challenges he has faced.
Taking to his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, “It is clear that the Supreme Court's Historic Decision on Immunity demands and requires a Complete and Total Dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts -- The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C., the Manhattan D.A.'s Zombie Case, the New York A.G. Scam, Fake Claims about a woman I never met (a 40 year old photo in a line with her then husband does not count!), and the Georgia “Perfect” Phone Call charges,” and though that may be an overly optimistic wish, the former president will at least likely avoid federal trial before voters go to the polls.