The case was brought in a federal district court in Washington, which President Trump has since brought into the appeals court. In a surprise move on Monday, Mr. Smith preempted the defense team by asking the U.S. Supreme Court for an immediate review on President Trump’s presidential immunity defense.
That petition came just hours after the special counsel tried to “complicate” President Trump’s appeal, defense attorneys argued in the new reply, by ignoring and arguing against “the Supreme Court’s binding precedent and urges the Court to permit continued pretrial proceedings on a parallel track.”
Then on Tuesday, the special counsel filed a motion requesting a hearing in the district court, regarding classified information.
“The only coherent principle that emerges from the prosecution’s filings is based on strategic gamesmanship rather than the law: On behalf of the Biden Administration, the prosecution will do everything that it can to rush to an unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair trial to try to prevent President Trump from winning the 2024 election, which he is currently leading,” the new filing reads.
The defense team has already accused the prosecution of being politically motivated in multiple court filings, echoing President Trump’s public speeches claiming that the indictments against him have come at the behest of President Joe Biden, his chief political rival for reelection.
Defense attorneys had previously argued that a stay of all district court proceedings was necessary according to precedent, and that if the district court would not grant the pause they would seek it from the appeals court, which has accepted the case. After U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity, she opened the path for President Trump to bring the case to the appellate court.
The defense team had filed a total of four motions to dismiss, including on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution,” on which she has not yet issued an order and opinion. Presumably, this could open up another path to appeal.
Trial Date
Now President Trump is arguing that the special counsel has clearly revealed their intentions to rush a trial.“The prosecution’s frivolous and unsupportable opposition demonstrates their improper motivation and their desperation. The stay sought by President Trump is mandatory,” the new filing reads.
Prosecutors have been insistent on a March 4, 2024, trial start in the several recent court filings. They argue that it is in the interest of the public that this case, which they described at “the heart of our democracy,” is settled quickly. In order to do so, the district court case must be allowed to continue as if a March trial is still set to happen, they argued.
Defense attorneys called that a “lawless” proposal, and added that if the appeal does not result in a ruling in the defense’s favor, the prosecution could then file a motion to lift the pause.
The March 4, 2024, date has been widely reported as the day before Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states will hold their Republican primaries.
In a similar case against President Trump in Georgia, prosecutors had originally sought this trial date, before codefendants demanded a speedy trial that threw off the likelihood of that schedule. A trial date for President Trump has not been set in Georgia.
‘Politically Motivated’
Defense attorneys argued that the special counsel is improperly continuing to litigate against President Trump while the appeal is ongoing.“Ignoring these realities, and without legal authority, the prosecution proposes a bizarre onesided proceeding in President Trump’s absence during the appeal,” the new filing reads.
They accused prosecutors of using court filings to further a political campaign against President Trump, pushing back on the explanation that it is all in the “public interest.”
“In their dream world, notwithstanding the divestiture of jurisdiction, the prosecution would continue to file false motions with inaccurate descriptions of the evidence in order to harm President Trump’s reputation and bolster President Biden’s losing campaign,” attorneys claimed. “The Special Counsel was not elected or confirmed by the Senate. The prosecution has no mandate other than marching orders from President Biden.”
Defense attorneys are arguing against this, saying “rushing to trial is antithetical to that interest,” and the prosecution has already created public mistrust in the justice system.
“Any trial devoid of due process and the careful consideration of all legal issues would lack legitimacy, and such a trial would cause further irreparable harm to a country already deeply divided and injured by the weaponization of law enforcement and the deterioration of our system of justice,” they wrote.
