Former President Trump's election interference case resumed with a hearing.
Attorneys argued over issues of presidential immunity after former President Donald Trump, through his lawyer, entered a plea of not guilty to charges in the superseding indictment in his election interference case on Thursday.
Thursday's hearing, following months of delays in the case, came a week after special counsel Jack Smith filed the new indictment that revised the original Jan. 6 charges to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office.
After arguments concluded, Judge Chutkan adjourned the hearing.
She said she would issue a scheduling order as soon as possible regarding the next steps in the case.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who was present during the hearing, departed with multiple members of his team.
Judge Chutkan says she is inclined to let both sides file more motions or briefs related to the Trump's teams challenges to the case on statutory grounds -- but she also made clear that she believes those statutory issues can be handled at the same time that the parties also try to resolve immunity-related issues.
“Immunity is the lynchpin here,” and both sets of issues can be handled concurrently, she said.
Prosecutor Tom Windom made some final points supporting the prosecution's views. Among them, he noted that in the New York hush money case against Trump, Trump's legal team filed a 52-page motion to vacate the case only nine days after the SCOTUS ruling related to immunity.
"The defense can move comprehensively, quickly and well, and so can we," and the judge should consider that in setting the schedule in this case, Windom said.
Defense attorney John Lauro then said he wanted to speak briefly. Chutkan said it had to be brief, saying, "I don't need any more rhetoric on how serious and grave this is."
"It's not rhetoric, it's called legal argument," Lauro shot back.
Lauro again insisted that special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unlawful. "We have an illegitimate prosecutor. We have an illegitimate indictment," he said.
Judge Chutkan is roundly rejecting defense attorney John Lauro's assertions that having the special counsel file an opening defense of their indictment in the wake of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling would be unfair to Trump.
Lauro says it would create a scenario where the special counsel gets to determine what previously secret evidence they want to make public without giving Trump's team an ability to immediately respond in his defense. Lauro said there's a wealth of evidence still under seal that they would in turn seek to make public that they argue is clearly exculpatory for Trump.
"For them to selectively decide how they want to portray their case before we move to dismiss" would be a "fundamental unfairness never before seen in a district court," Lauro says.
Chutkan also rejects the idea that she must immediately decide that Trump's conversations with then-VP Mike Pence were immune in order to throw out the indictment.
She notes that the Supreme Court had the indictment in front of them and could have taken the step of deciding Trump's conversations with Pence were fully immune -- but they did not.
"Immunity is the linchpin here," she says.
