Experts: Filing shows how Trump plans to go around Judge Chutkan to stop case “dead in its tracks”

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday sought to stop all proceedings in his D.C. election subversion case after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected his presidential immunity claim.

Trump’s lawyers in a filing argued that Chutkan no longer has any power over the case while he appeals her ruling, a process that could take weeks or months, according to Politico. Trump’s lawyers argue that Chutkan must delay all deadlines because the former president is entitled to an “automatic stay.”

“The filing of President Trump’s notice of appeal has deprived this Court of jurisdiction over this case in its entirety pending resolution of the appeal,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro wrote. “Therefore, a stay of all further proceedings is mandatory and automatic.”

Trump’s lawyers also indicated that they plan to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a stay if Chutkan does not do so. Unless Chutkan rules otherwise, the lawyers wrote, they plan to ignore all upcoming pretrial deadlines in the case.

The Trump filing says that special counsel Jack Smith’s team has acknowledged that Trump can’t be forced to go to trial while the appeal is pending but plans to oppose the stay on proceedings such as pretrial motions, hearings and trial planning, according to Politico.

Trump’s lawyers rejected the special counsel’s argument, writing that Trump is entitled to avoid “the burdens of litigation” while his appeal is pending.

“Concerns regarding judicial resources and costs from continued litigation during the pendency of the appeal — including financial, reputational, and political costs to President Trump and this country — are significant,” Blanche and Lauro wrote.

Chutkan on Thursday ordered Smith’s team to file their response by Sunday.

Trump’s “goal is clear: prevent this case from making it to trial before the election,” tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss.

“Trump knows his only way out is making sure the trials never happen,” agreed former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained on Thursday that it is "not just an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, but potentially an appeal to the Supreme Court."

"So when you talk about running out the clock, it's certainly possible that we could get through this appellate process and give Judge Chutkan time before the 2024 election to try this case," she said. "But Donald Trump is going to try every play in the book, both to stay the case pending appeal, and then to delegate that appeal and not expedite it so that he doesn't have to be tried before November, in the hopes that by January he can stop this case dead in its tracks."

Chutkan last week rejected Trump’s presidential immunity argument, writing that the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."

"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," Chutkan wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."

Chutkan also rejected Trump’s claims that the indictment violates his free speech rights, writing that "it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

"Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements ... but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process," she wrote.

Former federal prosecutor Denis Aftergut wrote on Monday that Chutkan’s opinion is “meticulously crafted with the Supreme Court in mind.”

“The decision deploys every methodology of constitutional interpretation, including textualism, each variety of so-called originalism, attention to constitutional structure and underlying premises, functional considerations, and history,” he wrote in Slate op-ed. “All point ineluctably to her conclusion.”