Quantcast
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Jack Smith Fails Again as D.C. Case Pushed Past Election Day

'I am definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute...'

(Luis CornelioHeadline USA) U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan announced that President Donald Trump’s trial over the Jan. 6 events will not proceed until after the 2024 election. 

Chutkan set Nov. 7 as the deadline for Trump’s defense attorneys and the prosecution to file paperwork—just two days after the presidential election, Fox News reported. 

Trump had initially requested that pre-trial proceedings begin in 2025, either in spring or fall, citing the presidential election. 

However, Chutkan dismissed the election schedule as “not relevant” to the case or the court proceedings, adding, “I am definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute,” she said.

The new date marked a major defeat for Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had aggressively pushed to expedite the case and bring it to trial before the election.

Thursday’s hearing marked the first time the courtroom reconvened since the Supreme Court ruled that Trump has presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his official duties as president.

Evidence related to these duties cannot be used in court, prompting Smith to re-indict Trump without any evidence tied to his presidential tenure. 

Trump’s attorneys argue the case should be dismissed, claiming the jury was presented with evidence the Supreme Court deemed inadmissible for prosecution. 

On the question of immunity, Chutkan asked prosecutors to file their opening brief on September 26. As reported by The New York Times, the prosecution will summarize their evidence and explain why it is not disqualified under the immunity ruling. 

The case stems from Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland appointing Smith to go after Trump. 

Smith spearheaded a four-count criminal indictment against Trump over alleged efforts to question the 2020 election results. 

Smith has aggressively pursued the case, even requesting the Supreme Court to intervene in the appeals process—an unusual move that undermined judicial integrity. 

Copyright 2024. No part of this site may be reproduced in whole or in part in any manner other than RSS without the permission of the copyright owner. Distribution via RSS is subject to our RSS Terms of Service and is strictly enforced. To inquire about licensing our content, use the contact form at https://headlineusa.com/advertising.
- Advertisement -

TRENDING NOW

TRENDING NOW