{"id":106723,"date":"2024-08-09T12:00:29","date_gmt":"2024-08-09T12:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/special-counsel-requests-delay-in-response-to-scheduling-order-in-trump-jan-6-case\/"},"modified":"2024-08-09T12:00:29","modified_gmt":"2024-08-09T12:00:29","slug":"special-counsel-requests-delay-in-response-to-scheduling-order-in-trump-jan-6-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/special-counsel-requests-delay-in-response-to-scheduling-order-in-trump-jan-6-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Special Counsel requests delay in response to scheduling order in Trump Jan. 6 case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Creativeye99\/Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

(WASHINGTON) — Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office requested a delay Thursday in responding to a scheduling order from the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s federal election subversion case, citing issues related to the Supreme Court’s decision that granted presidents immunity from prosecution for certain acts taken while in office.<\/p>\n

In a joint status report filed Thursday evening, Smith’s office said they continue “to assess the new precedent set forth last month” by the Supreme Court in tandem with “other Department of Justice components.”<\/p>\n

“Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision,” Smith’s office said. “The Government therefore respectfully requests additional time to provide the Court with an informed proposal regarding the schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward.”<\/p>\n

The filing further notes former President Trump’s team did not object to the Special Counsel’s request for a three-week extension, which would also call off a status conference set for Friday of next week and reschedule it at District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s choosing for any time “convenient” after the government’s filing.<\/p>\n

The filing is the first clear indication Special Counsel Smith’s office continues to face difficulties in determining how to move forward with its Jan. 6 case against Trump after the Supreme Court’s decision granting immunity for “official acts” taken by a president, while declining to grant immunity for so-called “unofficial acts.”<\/p>\n

While Chutkan resumed her control of the case last Friday and set forth a quick briefing schedule, Smith’s team has had more than a month since the Supreme Court handed down its July 1 decision to deliberate on the path forward.<\/p>\n

The delay request follows many legal experts’ exasperation over the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the high court’s immunity ruling. They say this could make it difficult for any criminal prosecution of a president to move forward — even separate from Trump’s alleged criminal efforts to overturn the 2020 election.<\/p>\n

Trump last year pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.<\/p>\n

The former president has denied all wrongdoing.<\/p>\n

Copyright \u00a9 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Creativeye99\/Getty Images (WASHINGTON) — Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office requested a delay Thursday in responding to a scheduling order from the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s federal election subversion case, citing issues related to the Supreme Court’s decision that granted presidents immunity from prosecution for certain acts taken whileRead More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[156,31,2],"tags":[273,271,276,274,270,123,275,133,124,272,102,103],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106723"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106723\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lascrucestoday.com\/newstalklc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}