The trial date in the 2020 federal election case against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. was pushed back on Friday, which led to a host of ramifications that has not pleased his political enemies. At all.
The J6 hearing was supposed to start on March 4, but it was put on hold while a federal appeals court is slated to hear Trump’s case that he shouldn’t be charged because he was president before the Capitol riots.
It looked less and less plausible that the March 4 trial date would stick prior to District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order on Friday, which effectively removed the hearing from the docket and court calendar.
In January, Trump’s team disclosed that prosecutors were still sending court documents even though the case was put on hold. Chutkan told Smith’s team that they shouldn’t keep submitting court filings without her permission.
The former president won’t have to go to trial until after the 2024 presidential election, which is good news for him.
CNN host Erin Burnett had legal analyst Ryan Goodman on to explain the far-reaching ramifications of the March 4 hearing being dropped from the court calendar.
“Here we are, that this has been postponed indefinitely, and I guess there are awaiting and immunity ruling, but what does that mean?” Burnett said. “I mean, I understand we knew it was going to be postponed, right? I mean, that was understandable. At this point we hadn’t gotten the ruling, but nonetheless, ‘indefinitely’ does sort of have a heavy weight to it.”
“It most certainly does because the judge, Judge Chutkan, could have put down another somewhat provisional date for start of trial, but she didn’t, which gives us a sense of just how suspended the action currently is as we await the DC circuit, and as she even suggested, if and when she gets the mandate from the DC circuit,” Goodman replied.
“So it could be that by the time they issue a mandate, her calendar is already full,” he added. “So it really is just going to be waiting to see when that trial could start and if it could even start in the spring or the summer at all.”
“Which I mean is incredible that we’ve reached this moment. Advisors to the former president are telling CNN, given what you’re saying, that they think this is a win for Trump in the campaign. Is it that clear cut?” Burnett asked.
“I’m not sure it’s that clear cut, but it’s certainly a good day for him,” Goodman responded. “This is good news for him. The reason that it might not be that clear cut is that in a certain sense the district court is sending a signal to the D.C. circuit. She’s basically saying, in a certain sense, this is very disruptive to the trial. Now I’ve had to suspend everything.”
“So that puts a little bit extra pressure on the DC circuit to rule, and so we might still see a ruling from the DC circuit,” he continued. “Then the Supreme Court decides whether or not it wants to act and then everything could be put back on track. Definitely a good day for President Trump, but not necessarily out of the woods.”
“In the context of what this means for the other trials against Trump, obviously you’ve got the question marks in Georgia that are out there right now,” Burnett said. “That could mean Alvin Bragg’s Hush Money case, which is the one that had been seen as the most politicized. But it is a criminal case. That could be the one that goes first after all of this, right? When he had sort of acquiesced and moved it. So that wouldn’t be the case, but it looks like it’s conceivable that it is first now.”
“I would put my money on the idea that that’s going to be the first case, and it might be the only case,” Goodman conceded. “It might be the only criminal case that’s actually brought to trial before the election.”
“Wow,” Burnett said, exasperated.
“But it’s definitely, it looks like it’s going to be first, and I think that’s another windfall for President Trump,” he continued. “Because as you say, it’s certainly the weakest of the criminal cases. It has the least gravity to it. It might not even come with a real serious risk of imprisonment. It’s that weak of a case in that sense. And it’s also predicated in part on witnesses like Michael Cohen. So it’s the case that if he were to wish which case would go first, it would be that one.”
NOW READ:
