The former president Donald Trump’s plea to have special counsel Jack Smith and his office held in contempt has been denied by the judge presiding over the federal election meddling case against him.
Trump’s attorneys requested earlier this month that Smith be held in contempt for making motions during the case’s stay while Trump appealed on the grounds of presidential immunity.
However, Chutkan stated in her opinion and order on Thursday that she agreed with Trump that Smith’s filings place a “cognizable” burden on him and that reviewing Smith’s filings was “not a major burden” for Trump’s team.
Additionally, Chutkan stated that she would now prohibit the special counsel from filing any further significant pretrial motions without the consent of the court.
Chutkan has mandated that, for the duration of the stay order, all parties must obtain her consent before submitting any more pre-trial motions.
“This measure is an addition to the Stay Order, aimed to further advance its purposes, and does not reflect a determination that the Government has violated any of its clear and unambiguous terms or acted in bad faith,” she wrote.
Chutkan ruled that since obtaining discovery “requires no review or response” from Trump’s team, she “cannot conclude that merely receiving discovery or an exhibit list constitutes a meaningful burden.” Chutkan also stated that continuing to produce discovery was a separate matter.
Smith’s office had made it clear to the court and Trump’s team that it intended to stick to the earlier timelines that the court had set. In a memo refuting Trump’s request to have the special counsel held in contempt, Smith’s office stated that it “performed as promised.”
Smith’s office was factually correct, as Chutkan pointed out in her order: her motion did not prevent the special counsel from meeting deadlines going forward.
“On its own terms, then, the Stay Order’s key operative sentence did not clearly bar the Government from voluntary rather than obligatory compliance with the Pretrial Order’s now-stayed deadlines,” Chutkan wrote.
In a move, Trump claimed that the federal government had broken a court order by carrying on with the lawsuit’s discovery process and by making the petition while the case was on hold while an appeals court reviewed his attempt to have the case dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity.
In a motion filed earlier this month, Trump’s attorney John Lauro claimed that federal prosecutors are involved in “partisan-driven misconduct” and that Smith should be held in contempt for producing information in a “illegal” manner.
In her judgment on Thursday, Chutkan pointed out that even after she had stayed the case on December 13, Smith’s office had sent Trump’s attorneys new information, a draft exhibit list, and a move to have certain arguments and evidence excluded from the case’s trial.
A federal appeals court is yet to rule on Trump’s claim that his election meddling activities are exempt from prosecution because he was president during the relevant period. It’s conceivable that the Supreme Court will hear the case.
The election case trial is set to start on March 4, but Chutkan indicated in her ruling that it can be postponed while the courts address these legal issues.
“Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the court has not and will not set deadlines in this case based on the assumption that he has undertaken preparations when not required to do so,” she wrote.
She then cited an earlier remark she had made, indicating that seven months would be “sufficient time” to get ready for trial and implying that since the matter has been put on hold since December, a few more weeks would be added.
