President Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith have taken a surprising turn in their legal strategy regarding the January 6 case. In a joint status report submitted to Judge Tanya Chutkan, it is revealed that Trump is now seeking to focus on the trial itself rather than providing detailed scheduling information. This shift in approach has left Smith taking a more laissez-faire stance, showing reluctance to offer specifics and deferring to Judge Chutkan’s discretion.
Trump’s Previous Scheduling Strategies
In previous cases, it was Mr. Smith who took the lead in setting deadlines and filling in the calendar with detailed scheduling proposals. For example, in the Mar-a-Lago case involving secret documents, Smith presented an elaborate scheduling plan to Judge Aileen Cannon, while Trump sought to delay the prosecution indefinitely. However, the charges were ultimately dismissed by Judge Cannon, rendering the dispute moot.
Smith’s Urgency in Current Case
In contrast to Trump’s past delays, Smith has been advocating for a punctilious and prompt approach to scheduling in the January 6 case. He urged the United States District of Columbia Circuit to expedite the immunity appeal, which was granted. Even before a decision was made in Trump v. United States, Smith petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari before judgment, a request that was ultimately denied.
Smith’s Pivot and Trump’s Detailed Schedule
Smith’s recent actions suggest a pivot in his strategy. He requested a three-week delay on briefing regarding how the Nine’s ruling in Trump v. United States should be applied to the prosecution of Trump. Instead of providing specific dates, Smith’s half of the status report proposes a procedure for scheduling briefing based on Judge Chutkan’s discretion. On the other hand, Trump’s lawyers have outlined a detailed schedule extending to Spring-Fall 2025, emphasizing the need for judicial efficiency.
In terms of immunity, Smith is now prepared to file his opening brief promptly at any time deemed appropriate by the court, a departure from his previous stance on expediting the trial. Trump’s legal team, however, acknowledges the time and resources required for fully considering and resolving potential motions in the case.
Trump’s Election Strategy
Despite Trump’s previous efforts to expedite the trial before the election, it appears that a trial before November 5 is now unlikely. Trump has avoided mentioning the election in his proposed schedule, which includes hearings on October 25 and November 8. The special counsel’s decision not to pursue a mini trial for parsing immunity further indicates a shift in his approach.
Smith’s deference to Judge Chutkan mirrors District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to defer to Judge Juan Merchan on delaying a sentencing hearing for Trump. Both prosecutors seem to be considering the potential impact of the upcoming presidential election on the case’s timeline and outcome.
In light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, Trump has requested a delay in his sentencing hearing, while Smith has refrained from taking a position on the matter. The prosecutors may be anticipating the potential impact of a Vice President Harris victory on the case, which could potentially provide them with the time needed to proceed with their legal strategies.