First hearing in Trump election interference case since immunity ruling

Trump attorney John Lauro speaks as Judge Tanya Chutkan held a status conference Thursday in the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.

At Thursday’s hearing in the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump — the first proceeding before Judge Tanya Chutkan since the Supreme Court granted him some immunity in the prosecution — the trial judge did not finalize a schedule for the next steps in the case, but previewed her thinking on how the case should advance.

She was skeptical of the Trump team’s request that she first decide whether the then-Vice President Mike Pence-related allegations in the indictment were immune, and Chutkan repeatedly stressed the discretion she believes she has for how she structures the proceedings in her courtroom.

Though Thursday’s one-hour-and-15-minute hearing was mainly about process, a sharp back-and-forth she had with a Trump attorney brought attention to how the 2024 election is looming over the case.

Here are key takeaways from the hearing:

Chutkan will lay out next steps as soon as Thursday: The judge did not issue a ruling from the bench but said she planned to put forward a scheduling order as soon as possible, which she said could be later Thursday. That could lay out the steps in the case that will play out before the November election. During the hearing, prosecutors explained why they want the chance to file an opening brief that would argue why they believe their new indictment complies with the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Trump’s attorneys argued against that and proposed a longer schedule.

Jack Smith sits during the hearing.

Election looms over hearing, but Chutkan says she’s not considering it: As the judge debated with Trump attorney John Lauro over how quickly she should move to allow the prosecution to file a brief defending their indictment on immunity, they eventually addressed the political elephant in the courtroom: the looming presidential election. After a back and forth with the judge over what the process should be for deciding the immunity issues in the case, Lauro acknowledged that among his team’s concerns about the prosecutors’ proposed approach is what would be aired on the court’s public record at a “sensitive time.” The crux of the process disagreement comes down to who gets to file their immunity brief first and when that brief gets filed.

Special counsel prosecutor Tom Windom speaks during the hearing.

Trump has repeatedly complained that the new indictment filed last week was an attempt to interfere with the campaign — just as he complained about his New York trial in the spring — but Chutkan’s comments signaled she isn’t going to wait until after November 5 before moving forward on the issues that have to be dealt with in the case following the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.

Read more key takeaways from the hearing

CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz and Holmes Lybrand contributed to this report.

Judge Tanya Chutkan fired off several zingers from the bench during the first hearing in Donald Trump’s election interference case in almost a year. They nearly all were in response to Trump defense attorney John Lauro:

Special counsel Jack Smith, with a beard even longer than the last time he attended a court hearing in a Trump case in Florida at the beginning of summer, watched with lively reaction, looking around, smiling occasionally.

Surrounded by several security agents in a full courtroom, he smirked when the courtroom conversation brought up the coming challenges to his Constitutional authority.

But the moment in which the tenor of the courtroom changed when Lauro mentioned to the judge that it’s a “very sensitive time in our nation’s history.”

Chutkan and Lauro had been quipping back and forth so quickly the court reporter said she had some trouble keeping up with the cross-talk. But with that line from Lauro, Chutkan leaned back in her chair, sighed, then interrupted him with a finger up.

She paused, halting down their pace.

Judge Tanya Chutkan hinted that she was dubious of Donald Trump’s coming attempt to get the Washington, DC, case dismissed on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was supposedly illegally appointed.

She took a swipe at the ruling that Judge Aileen Cannon handed down dismissing the classified documents case on that basis, calling that ruling not particularly “persuasive.”

Chutkan also emphasized that a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas — which Cannon’s ruling cited — that laid out those constitutional concerns was “dicta,” meaning non-binding language. And she brought up that there is already DC Circuit precedent in the books upholding the constitutionality of special counsels, which would be binding on her as a trial judge in Washington, DC.

Nevertheless, she is letting the Trump team take a shot.

However, when his lawyers file the motion that asks for permission to formally make those arguments, they must elaborate on why they should be allowed to do so, Chutkan said.

Judge Tanya Chutkan addressed setting a trial date in the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump as she concluded Thursday’s hearing, but she did not schedule a date.

Chutkan acknowledged the likelihood that the issue of presidential immunity in the case will continue to be litigated and appealed once she hands down her next round of rulings on the next matter.

Both parties agreed.

“That’s all I have,” Chutkan said. “Thank you all.”

The parties are now discussing discovery in the case. Defense attorney John Lauro says that there is likely new discovery because prosecutors never had to weigh the issue of immunity before.

“We’re still getting discovery in this case,” Lauro says.

Lauro says there are also unresolved discovery issues in the case.

The defense attorney says the motion to dismiss will be a legal argument and won’t require more discovery or evidence.

Judge Tanya Chutkan says it makes sense to resolve the pending discovery motions sooner rather than later. She asks Lauro if he has any objections to that, and he says he does not.

Tom Windom says prosecutors do not expect to make any immunity-based discovery disclosures. “We have nothing further to provide” in discovery, he says. He adds that the defense has not told them what other evidence they think the government should hand over on the issue of immunity.

Chutkan says that she is going to “assume” the parties will continue to work together to resolve discovery issues on their own.

Chutkan says she will consider other motions over discovery together.

Judge Tanya Chutkan is now moving to the Supreme Court’s decision limiting how prosecutors can use obstruction charges against January 6 defendants.

Defense attorney John Lauro says that “it will be a whole new brief” to address the issue of obstruction in the case.

Chutkan pushes Lauro over his repeated assertion that defense attorneys are now dealing with a new indictment. It’s not new, she says, its the same charges. And of the allegations: “It’s not more stuff, it’s less.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence speaks during the 2023 First in the Nation Leadership Summit on October 14, 2023 in Nashua, New Hampshire. 

Donald Trump’s team is trying to tee up a key early battle: Whether the entire indictment should fall if former Vice President Mike Pence-related conduct is immune. 

Trump’s lawyers previewed the arguments in Friday’s filing. In Thursday’s hearing, Trump attorney John Lauro is focused on trying to convince Judge Tanya Chutkan that if she decides Trump’s interactions with Pence are covered under the immunity ruling, the whole case must be thrown out.

Lauro contends that moving forward that way is actually the more economical approach, because it could save the court from doing lengthy briefings on other allegations in the indictment if she decides the whole case must be dismissed on the Pence issue alone.

The argument does not appear to be resonating with Chutkan, who told Lauro that that she does not believe that deciding the Pence matter first — and whether its fatal to the entire case — is what “I was instructed to do by the Supreme Court.”

Smith’s team pushed back as well, arguing that Trump lawyers were taking a line out of the Supreme Court opinion out of context.

If the Pence-related conduct is deemed immune, “It is not an automatic dismissal of the indictment,” prosecutor Thomas Windom said.

Prosecutor Tom Windom again says that it would be prudent for the judge to decide immunity issues first.

The judge could then decide whether to dismiss the case, he adds.

Defense attorney John Lauro says that immunity should be decided before statutory motions, which Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed with.

The judge says that “immunity is the linchpin here.” 

Judge Tanya Chutkan is now turning to another potential defense motion over whether the grand jury improperly heard evidence about former Vice President Mike Pence.

She says she wants to know whether this is a separate challenge to the indictment than the one they have already discussed.

Donald Trump attorney John Lauro says the motions are separate but the communication with Pence will be the main focus as they move to dismiss the superseding indictment.

Prosecutor Tom Windom responds, saying, “It seems that what Mr. Lauro is suggesting is a two-step process.”

Trump’s defense has returned to an argument over whether special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment to lead the election interference case was legitimate, alluding to a ruling by a federal judge in Florida to throw out the classified documents case — a separate investigation into the former president also led by Smith and his team.

During a protracted back-and-forth with Judge Tanya Chutkan, defense attorney John Lauro raises the “illegitimacy of Mr. Smith.”

“We have an illegitimate prosecutor, we have an illegitimate indictment, and we have illegitimate legal issues raised in that indictment,” Lauro says.

He points to the ruling by Florida Judge Aileen Cannon — who has faced intense scrutiny over her handling of the documents case — to suggest something similar could be done in this case regarding Smith’s appointment.

But Chutkan says there is DC circuit precedent that may lead her to deny a motion to dismiss Smith. And Chutkan sounds skeptical of the Cannon ruling.

Lauro is also arguing that the court should factor in criticism of Smith’s appointment from conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote in a concurrence on the court’s presidential immunity ruling that Attorney General Merrick Garland may have violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith.

Prosecutors respond: Prosecutor Tom Windom responds to the arguments from Lauro, saying Trump’s team could have filed on the issue of Smith’s appointment earlier.

“They knew about the issue, they had the opportunity to file before,” Windom says, arguing that Trump should have filed his challenge to Smith before the case was paused for appeals. “They are suggesting somehow that a lone justice’s concurrence” has “somehow reopened the issue” of Smith’s appointment, Windom says.

Bottom line: Chutkan says she will allow Lauro to file a motion on the issue of Smith’s appointment, but says she wants him to address the DC precedent she referenced.

Assistant US Attorney Thomas Windom leaves the US District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland in January 2020.

During Thursday’s hearing, prosecutor Thomas Windom repeatedly deferred to Judge Tanya Chutkan on the timing for when the special counsel’s office could file a brief defending the new indictment as complying with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.

Chutkan pressed Windom to give a timeline for how quickly prosecutors could file the brief the special counsel proposed that would begin the process for Chutkan to sort out the immunity issues in the federal election subversion case. 

She continued to ask Windom for a date, and he said that prosecutors had “begun” writing estimated two to three weeks.

At the same time, he emphasized that prosecutors would leave the exact timing “to the court’s discretion.”

Left unsaid was how a briefing schedule would be inevitably intertwined with the election calendar, with Election Day — now two months away. 

In the brief, Windom said prosecutors “would set forth for the court” why the conduct is “private in nature and not subject to immunity.” 

The political elephant has made its appearance in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s courtroom.

After a back and forth with the judge over what the process should be for deciding the immunity issues in the case, Trump attorney John Lauro acknowledges that among his team’s concerns about the prosecutors’ proposed approach is what would be aired on the court’s public record at a “sensitive time.”

The crux of the process disagreement comes down who gets to file their immunity brief first and when that brief gets filed.

Lauro contends that if the special counsel Jack Smith’s team gets to file an opening brief on the immunity question first, it’s “unfair” and “prejudicial” to Trump. Instead, he argues, Trump should file the initial brief in the form of the motion to dismiss, after he has some time to obtain additional discovery from the government.

Lauro keeps claiming that going the prosecutors’ way would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Chutkan seems skeptical, and brings up the discretion she believes the high court has left to how to move forward.

Lauro denied that his arguments were connected to the presidential campaign.

Prosecutor Tom Windom is back to respond to arguments from Trump attorney John Lauro, who argued vigorously against the schedule set out by the special counsel’s team.

Windom says some of Lauro’s arguments are moot, because there is no additional evidence in the case to turn over. The prosecutor declines to say how much of their evidence should remain under seal.

Remember: Lauro has been arguing against a “rush to judgment” and suggesting a protracted schedule, including an evidentiary hearing and a chance to review evidence from the prosecution.

He has also suggested it’s unfair to let prosecutors enter evidence into the public record against Trump so close to the 2024 presidential election, though Judge Tanya Chutkan has said she won’t factor the electoral schedule into her decisions.

Judge Tanya Chutkan and defense attorney John Lauro are going back and forth in court now.

“We are talking about the presidency of the United States,” Lauro says.

“I am not talking about the presidency,” Chutkan says. “I am talking about a four count indictment.”

Chutkan continues:

“The decisions here will not just affect this case, it will affect the republic going forward” Lauro responds.

Defense attorney John Lauro again argues that Judge Tanya Chutkan may rule that the former Vice President Mike Pence evidence is immune and “as an initial matter the court can dismiss this case right away.”

Chutkan says that the Supreme Court could have decided the entire indictment was flawed, adding that she doesn’t agree that she can dismiss the superseding indictment out of hand.

“The ruling is clear, crystal clear,” Lauro argues of the Supreme Court, prompting a chuckle from Chutkan.

Lauro is arguing that evidence in the case needs to be made public before a long fight over presidential immunity begins. That is because he thinks that the indictment should be dismissed immediately over grand jury issues, and that arguing over immunity would no longer be necessary.

Lauro says that prosecutors want to “leap frog” over grand jury issues.

Judge Tanya Chutkan suggests that it is too early to set a trial date.

Defense attorney John Lauro continues to push back, saying the potential brief from prosecutors would be “a rush to judgement.”

Defense attorney John Lauro continues to fight for a protracted schedule.

Lauro says that he believes defense attorneys and the special counsel will be able to work out some of these evidentiary issues around immunity themselves.

“What is the rush to judgement that the special counsel is suggesting,” Lauro says.

“There is something unseemly” about how quickly this case is going, Lauro says.

Judge Tanya Chutkan pushes back, saying that “we are hardly sprinting to the finish line here.”

“We all know that whatever my decision on immunity is is going to be appealed,” Chutkan says, adding that “there needs to be some forward motion in this case.” 

The Trump team is being “pretty dramatic” in their arguments in court today, CNN’s chief legal correspondent Paula Reid said, when compared to what the defense has submitted in filings.

Reid added that the defense attorneys also argued “that the Supreme Court has already decided whether prosecutors can use evidence around Vice President Mike Pence and the judge cut him off and said, ‘I would disagree with that.’ And this is significant because this is really going to be the next area of dispute between prosecutors, defense attorneys and clearly, the judge. The judge noting here that it is up to her, the Supreme Court has given her discretion on this issue.”

Reid said that it’s looking like this may not go the way defense attorneys had hoped, but their number one goal here today is to delay anything here until after November.

Judge Tanya Chutkan and defense attorney John Lauro are sparring over which legal team would file briefings on the issue of presidential immunity first, and whether Trump’s attorneys can have access to prosecutors’ evidence before those filings are due.

Lauro says they’re not suggesting the case should go into the fall of next year, but rather that the issues at hand need to be dealt with carefully.

Chutkan says “immunity needs to be dealt with as early as possible.”

But Lauro is asking for an evidentiary hearing, saying, “We need a full and robust record.”

He adds that “it’s incredibly unfair that they (prosecutors) are able to put in the public record” evidence against Trump at this time, suggesting that it’s too close to the election.

“I am definitely not getting dragged into” the election, the judge adds

Defense attorney John Lauro wants Judge Tanya Chutkan to first make a decision on whether the superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump itself is legitimate.

Lauro explains that because evidence about former Vice President Mike Pence’s role in the certification of electoral college certification was presented to a grand jury, prosecutors have already breached presidential immunity protections.

Chutkan suggests handling the issue as part of their reply to the government’s first brief on immunity.

Trump attorney John Lauro says that the Supreme Court “already decided” whether prosecutors can use evidence around former Vice President Mike Pence.

Chutkan responded, “I would disagree with you, Mr. Lauro They sent that to me to figure out.”

This issue of communications with Pence “needs to be decided right away,” Lauro said.

“I don’t think I can decide that as a matter of law. I’d be risking reversal if I tried to,” Chutkan said of the Pence evidence.

Judge Tanya Chutkan drilled down on what she saw as the disagreement between the two parties for how the case should move forward.

She sees it as “two main questions:” How to resolve immunity question and how that approach fits in with the rest of the schedule.

Her ability to distill the 10 pages of courts filings submitted Friday that laid out Donald Trump’s and the special counsel’s differing proposals is trademark to her no-nonsense style and her desire to move proceedings like these in an efficient matter.

Though she won’t finalize the schedule at the hearing, she wants to do so soon after, and to do so, she wants to keep the discussions today very focused on where the parties diverge in their preferred approaches.

Trump’s attorney John Lauro is now discussing the schedule with Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The defense discussion follows a lengthy exchange between the judge and the prosecution about how they envision the proceedings unfolding.

Lauro tells the judge he “can’t imagine a more unfair protocol” on proceeding with the special counsel’s proposed schedule for the case.

Lauro argues the proposal “turns the criminal rules on its head,” arguing that it denies the defense the ability to go through discovery issues.

Chutkan asks why Lauro can’t deal with these issues simultaneously, saying, “We can all walk and chew gum at the same time.”

But Lauro insists “we need everything that we are entitled to … before we address these issues.”

Prosecutor Tom Windom and the judge are discussing timing for the prosecution’s brief, which Windom says would address why they believe the “presumption of immunity is rebutted” related to former Vice President Mike Pence.

“What we have said is that we leave the specific date to the court’s discretion” Windom says of filing deadlines. But, he notes, “we do actually have to write this thing.”

Judge Tanya Chutkan jokes that maybe Windom has it in his binder.

“I would be surprised by that,” Windom says.

Windom says that prosecutors have “begun” writing those arguments, but expect they need two to three weeks to finish.

Chutkan notes that would put the brief at the end of September.

Judge Tanya Chutkan calls prosecutor Thomas Windom to the lectern to discuss immunity.

“Why should we depart from the ordinary course here?” Chutkan asks Windom.

“I don’t think that we are in a typical situation,” Windom says. “We are in a place where the Supreme Court has created new law.”

“A guiding principle here is that we should structure a schedule” that leads to only one appeal, Windom says.

Windom says he wants a single appeal to deal with all immunity issues “at the same time, simultaneously.”

More on the prosecutor’s stance: He also said prosecutors are asking for a “comprehensive” discussion to both “pled and unpled acts” in order for Chutkan to make holistic decisions on the issue of immunity.

Windom says that the special counsel’s immunity arguments would contain “a number of exhibits,” including transcripts of grand jury testimony.

In the brief, the prosecutor says, “we would set forth for the court” why the conduct is “private in nature and not subject to immunity.”

The prosecutor says that their arguments would also explain why they could use evidence around former Vice President Mike Pence’s involvement in Trump’s alleged plot.

Judge Tanya Chutkan says she sees “two main questions” today in court: how to resolve the immunity issue and what the rest of the schedule will look like.

“Let’s first talk about the immunity issue,” Chutkan says.

Judge Tanya Chutkan is now reviewing what she has done since the election interference case returned to her jurisdiction last month, and which motions or court filings are still outstanding.

Before doing so, Trump’s attorney confirmed that the former president understands the substance of the charges against him and received a copy of the new indictment.

Chutkan is going through the timeframe of several issues including expert witnesses and exhibit lists before the case was stayed pending appeal.

“Obviously, all those deadlines have long since passed,” the judge says.

She also notes how many days attorneys had left to file briefings before the case was paused.

Chutkan also notes that “there’s also some common ground” on scheduling between the parties. She says that both sides identify issues that need to be resolved, including on immunity.

Former President Donald Trump is being arraigned on the superseding indictment, Judge Tanya Chutkan said in court Thursday. Trump’s attorney John Lauro just pled not guilty to the superseding indictment.

Chuktan confirmed Trump’s plea of not guilty.

“That is right,” Lauro responded.

“I will consider his arraignment for the superseding indictment to be complete,” Chutkan said.

Chutkan also said she doesn’t “intend to finalize a schedule at the hearing,” but added she hopes to do so as soon as possible — and possibly as soon as later today.

Judge Tanya Chutkan is at the bench and the hearing to consider how to proceed with special Jack Smith’s election interference case against Donald Trump is underway in a federal courthouse in Washington, DC.

She is reviewing the Supreme Court’s mandate on presidential immunity. Both parties introduced themselves to the judge, including prosecutors Thomas Windom and Molly Gaston.

“It’s been almost a year, you look rested Mr. Lauro” Chutkan told Trump’s attorney, John Lauro.

“Life was almost meaningless without seeing you,” Lauro said.

“Enjoy it while it lasts,” Chutkan replied, laughing.

More context: This is the first hearing in the federal election subversion case since prosecutors revised their indictment to try to bring their case in line with a Supreme Court ruling extending to Trump some presidential immunity in the prosecution.

Cameras are not allowed into Chutkan’s courtroom, but CNN’s reporters are there and will provide live updates as the hearing unfolds.

Here’s what to watch for in today’s hearing.

While Donald Trump is not expected to be in attendance Thursday for the first court hearing since prosecutors reworked their indictment in his election interference case, his team of lawyers are in Washington, DC, to argue on his behalf.

Special Counsel Jack Smith on August 1, 2023.

Special counsel Jack Smith is back in the spotlight as he’s reworked his indictment in the election interference case against former President Donald Trump in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

Smith not only narrowed the allegations against Trump but also removed references to communications between Trump and federal government officials. 

His determination to rescue his case after the Supreme Court immunity ruling underscores the huge personal stake that Trump has in winning in November and reacquiring the executive authority that would allow him to end federal proceedings against him.

Smith was also special counsel in a separate probe regarding Trump’s taking of classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. Although the criminal case was dismissed last month, Smith is arguing to revive the case with a vigorous defense of its authority.

Smith has investigated members of both parties, handling some of the highest-profile political corruption cases in recent memory, with mixed outcomes. His experience ranges from prosecuting a sitting US senator to bringing cases against gang members who were ultimately convicted of murdering New York City police officers. 

His career spans multiple stints in the Justice Department and international courts, which until his appointment had allowed him to keep a relatively low profile in the oftentimes brassy legal industry. 

For several years, Smith lived outside of the United States as the chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, a role he assumed in 2018 in which he investigated war crimes in Kosovo.

The E. Barrett Prettyman US Courthouse on June 6 in Washington, DC.

Former President Donald Trump’s legal team is heading into today’s hearing with the goal of convincing Judge Tanya Chutkan not to schedule any substantive hearings before the upcoming election, according to a source familiar with the legal strategy.

They expect today’s hearing will be brief — an hour or so — and that a “win” for them would be just getting the judge not to schedule any newsy hearings, such as testimony with former Vice President Mike Pence, before November. They do not believe there will be any “mini trial” in this case, as some legal analysts have suggested. 

The Trump team also does not believe that the former president has caused problems for himself in this case with recent comments acknowledging that he lost the election. 

There are still many issues that have to be litigated before this case can go to trial and, if Trump is not reelected and the federal cases are dismissed, the Trump team believes this case will make at least one more trip back to the Supreme Court.  

As the case moves forward, Trump’s lawyers are going to argue that the certain key pieces of evidence must be tossed under the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. If the judge does not agree, they will appeal all the way to the top court.

What may happen next: While the Supreme Court doesn’t have to take the case, the Trump team believes there was an implicit invitation in the court’s decision to come back with additional issues. The Trump team predicts this case would go to trial until next fall at the earliest, if it goes at all.

Former President Donald Trump attends his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on May 30.

Former President Donald Trump is facing four criminal cases while aiming to regain the White House in November.

In May, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the hush money trial in Manhattan criminal court — becoming the first former president in US history to be convicted of a felony.

Here are key things to know about each case:

Election interference case: Special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment on August 27 in his investigation into alleged efforts by the former president and his allies to overturn the 2020 election. The new indictment slims down the allegations against the 2024 Republican presidential nominee in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, though none of the four charges have been dropped. The Trump campaign has previously denied the allegations and Trump pleaded not guilty to all four counts. A judge will hold a hearing today in Washington, DC, to discuss how to proceed in the case.

Classified documents case: Trump was indicted in June 2023 by a federal grand jury in Miami for taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. Both Trump and his aide Walt Nauta have pleaded not guilty. On July 27, 2023, the special counsel charged Trump with three new counts, including one additional count of willful retention of national defense information. US District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case on July 15, 2024, saying in a ruling that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution.

Hush money case: Trump was first indicted in March 2023 by the Manhattan district attorney on state charges related to a hush-money payment to an adult-film star in 2016. On May 30, he was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree by 12 jurors. Prosecutors alleged during the trial that Trump was a part of an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election. Further, they alleged he was part of an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, including the $130,000 payment. Trump pleaded not guilty. He will not be sentenced until September 18, a New York judge ruled on July 2, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.

Fulton County case: An Atlanta-based grand jury on August 14, 2023, indicted Trump and 18 others on state charges stemming from their alleged efforts to overturn the former president’s 2020 electoral defeat. Four people have pleaded guilty. The charges, brought in a sweeping investigation led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, cover some of the most overt efforts by the former president and his allies to meddle in the 2020 presidential election. Trump pleaded not guilty via court filing, waiving an in-court appearance as allowed by Georgia law. On June 5, a Georgia appeals court indefinitely paused the case until a panel of judges rules on whether Willis should be disqualified.

Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Desert Diamond Arena on August 23 in Glendale, Arizona. 

Special counsel prosecutors reworked the indictment against Donald Trump to narrow the allegations to try to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity earlier this summer. That ruling granted immunity to some of Trump’s conduct that falls within his official powers.

Prosecutors reworked the indictment in two ways – by cutting language about the former president’s interactions with senior Justice Department officials, and by adding language describing when Trump was acting as a candidate and not the president.

Prosecutors noted several times that Trump didn’t have any constitutionally-assigned presidential duties regarding the post-election transition of power.

Here are some of the things that were changed in the new indictment:

The judge in the case will hold a status conference on Thursday where both sides will discuss how the case moves forward. It’s the first hearing in the case after the immunity ruling.

Read more about what was edited in the new indictment against Trump.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on December 18, 2023 in Washington, DC.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan has former President Donald Trump’s criminal case in Washington, DC, back in her hands and will decide how to proceed with the federal case about efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Chutkan, of the DC District Court, is left with a number of crucial decisions to make, including whether Trump’s efforts count as official acts following the Supreme Court issuing a game-changing ruling on presidential power.

The judge already has decided over a dozen major pre-trial issues, ruling in favor of special counsel prosecutors in most of those. She’s also rejected a series of motions by Trump’s lawyers, including refusing to strike language that Trump believed was “inflammatory” from the indictment and to dismiss the case entirely based on his First Amendment claims.

Chutkan has repeatedly spoken out in very strong terms against the efforts to overturn the election and disrupt the transfer of power.

She has presided over dozens of January 6 criminal prosecutions and is known as a harsh sentencer for those convicted of charges related to the US Capitol riot. Chutkan, a Jamaica native, has been on the federal bench for a decade. 

After graduating from University of Pennsylvania Law School, Chutkan spent more than a decade working as a public defender in Washington, DC. According to her biography on the court website, Chutkan “argued several appellate cases and tried over 30 cases, including numerous serious felony matters” as a public defender.

Donald Trump speaks to supporters on January 6, 2021.

Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges laid out in special counsel Jack Smith’s retooled election subversion indictment against him in federal court.

The pleading came in a Tuesday court filing, which also indicated he wished to be excused from appearing in person at an upcoming court hearing in the case.

Thursday will mark the first court hearing before Judge Tanya Chutkan since the case was paused for the US Supreme Court to determine the extent of presidential immunity to which Trump is entitled.

Chutkan said later Tuesday that Trump does not have to appear at the hearing Thursday – when the former president’s formal arraignment will occur. Trump’s attorneys plan to attend the hearing.

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during an Election Threats Task Force meeting at the Justice Department on September 4.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wednesday that he’s standing by special counsel Jack Smith and insisted the superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump did not violate Justice Department rules around elections.

The Justice Department has a general policy against taking overt investigative steps against a candidate close to an election, usually referred to as the “60-day rule.” Trump’s attorneys have previously pointed to this policy to fight against actions by the special counsel, and Trump has repeatedly claimed that Smith is interfering in the 2024 election.

Garland added that “the special counsel is required by the regulations to follow the policies of the Justice Department, including the election sensitivities policies, and I’m confident that he did so.” 

The superseding indictment against Trump was handed up last week in the federal election subversion case. Read takeaways from it here.

Former U.S. President and current Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump at a campaign event at Alro Steel on August 29 in Potterville, Michigan.

Donald Trump has, so far, successfully avoided coming face to face with DC District Judge Tanya Chutkan in his federal election subversion case. 

Trump was arraigned before DC Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya on August 3, 2023.

It is common practice to be arraigned before a magistrate judge before a federal judge takes over the case.

There have been two hearings before Chutkan in the case, one in August 2023 and one in October. Trump waived his appearance for both hearings and has also waived his appearance for today’s hearing. His legal team has also successfully delayed the trial until after the 2024 presidential election. In fact, a trial date hasn’t been set yet. 

Trump did attend oral arguments on his presidential immunity claims in January 2024 in the same courthouse where Chutkan presides, but that hearing was before a panel of three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Today’s status conference is the first hearing in Trump’s election subversion case since the Supreme Court ruled that Trump could claim some immunity in the case. It is also the first hearing since prosecutors charged Trump in a superseding indictment in the case just last week. 

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith will be before Judge Tanya Chutkan today for the first hearing in the federal election subversion case since prosecutors revised their indictment to try to bring their case in line with a Supreme Court ruling extending to Trump some presidential immunity in the prosecution.

Here’s what to watch for:

How quickly will Chutkan want to move forward?

Smith and Trump both offered their perspectives of the case’s schedule on Friday: Smith did not offer firm dates for the next phase of the case, while Trump recommended a schedule for certain pre-trial disputes that would carry through until at least the beginning of 2025.

Their staunch disagreements set up what could be a fierce debate in front of the judge, who will ultimately decide how the case will move forward.

How does Chutkan want to resolve the immunity issue?

Trump and Smith have different procedural ideas for how the battle over immunity that the Supreme Court ruling teed up should be tackled. Chutkan could indicate that she is choosing one of those approaches over the other, or she might press to find some middle ground way that melds their opposing proposals.

Will Chutkan weigh in on Trump’s new plans to attack the case?

In addition to the immunity issue, Trump previewed in Friday’s filing what will be several other possible efforts he launches to attack Smith’s case. Chutkan could lay out a process for dealing with those potential requests for the case’s dismissal, while signaling how seriously she views them.

Here’s what else to watch for.

While Donald Trump faces a fresh indictment over efforts to overturn the 2020 election, some of his biggest allies are hoping the revised charging document helps them evade professional consequences and criminal prosecution for their roles nearly four years ago. 

Special counsel Jack Smith rewrote Trump’s federal indictment after the US Supreme Court ruled this summer that the president can’t be prosecuted for “official acts” taken while president. Smith not only narrowed the allegations against Trump but also removed references to communications between Trump and federal government officials.

Now former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark are trying to use their onetime boss’ winnowed indictment to their advantage.

Trump is the only one charged in the federal case, but several of his allies and members of his administration are facing state-level criminal charges over their meddling after the last election, including Clark and Meadows. Clark and others also are facing professional disciplinary proceedings that could disrupt their ability to practice law.

Meadows, in particular, could stand to benefit from the new Trump indictment handed up in federal court last week. Meadows was cut from much of the document, except for some interactions he had with Trump as the then-president sought to reach the secretary of state in Georgia on the phone to pressure him into aiding his election reversal gambit.

That has led Meadows’ attorneys to argue he should not be prosecuted for actions he took while serving in the White House. He’s been charged in Georgia and Arizona over his efforts to reverse the election results in the battleground states. His main defense so far has been to try to get the cases moved to federal court, which could make it easier for him to make a bid for his own immunity.

“I don’t think that’s Jack Smith’s intent,” an attorney close to the case told CNN about the new indictment bolstering Meadows’ argument. But, the attorney added, “it’s the way chips have fallen.”

Smith’s office declined to comment.

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, of the DC District Court, will have to decide how to proceed with the criminal case against Donald Trump over efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including setting a schedule.

She must also decide whether prosecutors can take Trump to trial and be able to call certain witnesses, such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

The new indictment, approved by a grand jury last week, requires Trump to enter a new pleading.

While prosecutors cut back some of the allegations against the former president in light of the Supreme Court ruling, Trump faces the same four criminal charges as before.

Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a campaign rally in Glendale, Arizona, on August 23. 

Special counsel Jack Smith defiantly re-injected the question of Donald Trump’s bid to steal the 2020 election into the intensifying end game of this year’s White House race.

By trying to rescue his case after his initial indictment was gutted by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, Smith signaled that he is determined to bring the former president to justice — even though there will be no trial before Election Day.

His move underscored the huge personal investment Trump has in winning the presidency in November: He not only would return to the nation’s top office, but would also gain the authority to halt this and another federal case against him and head off any sentences that could include jail time if he is convicted.

Being indicted, yet again, in the middle of a presidential campaign would be a disqualifying badge of shame for most candidates. Yet Trump has used his criminal problems to revive his campaign before — especially during the Republican primary contest. His new indictment came almost exactly a year after he showed up to be booked in an Atlanta jail and submitted to a mug shot that his campaign turned into a defiant emblem.

Trump has struggled in recent weeks to find traction for his campaign against Vice President Kamala Harris. And the issue of the ex-president’s legal woes had not been a central focus of the election race in recent months. But no sooner had the new Smith charges been filed, the muscle memory of his team returned, as he revived the core narrative of his bid for a second term — a false claim that he’s a victim of election interference by a weaponized Biden Justice Department.

Read Collinson’s full analysis.