long 🧵 from Matthew Seligman on possible #Trump#DC#trial timelines
(1) As long as the #SCOTUS rejects Trump’s #immunity claim by the end of this Term in June, Trump’s trial should start before #Election Day.
(2) Whether the trial ends before ElectionDay depends on 3 factors:
(i) exactly when the #SupremeCourt issues its decision;
(ii) whether Judge #Chutkan compresses the pre-trial schedule; &
(iii) how long the trial takes.
(ii) #Chutkan indicated that she won’t set deadlines assuming #Trump has prepared his defense during the stay. Whether that means she won’t compress at all the 88 days of pretrial prep that were remaining when the stay was imposed - unknown.
(iii) The parties have estimated the #trial will take 8 - 12 wks. Some, like Andrew Weissmann, have speculated that #SpecialCounsel#JackSmith might attempt to simplify his case to shorten the trial. Whether that is possible also remains to be seen.
Adjusting the dials on each of the factors makes a dispositive difference.
If #SCOTUS decides the case on Jun 17 & #Chutkan does not compress the pretrial proceedings, an 8-wk trial will conclude on Nov 1, 2024. Before #Election Day.
But if the Court decides the case on Jun 30 & Chutkan does not compress the pretrial proceedings, a 12-wk trial will conclude on Dec 13, 2024. After Election Day—but before the next president is inaugurated on Jan 20, 2025.
Either way, #Trump’s DC #trial would be underway in the months b4 #Election Day & the case would head to the #jury shortly b4 or after ElectionDay.
The analysis assumes #SCOTUS affirms the DC Circuit's holding-that there is no absolute #immunity for presidential conduct, even if such conduct is w/in the outer perimeter of his ofcl duties.
A more complicated holding that requires fact-finding on remand could delay proceedings further, especially if there’s a subsequent 2nd interlocutory appeal.
One way that could happen is if #SCOTUS holds that the president is #immune for some subset of ofcl acts.
But—& this is important—not all holdings that are more protective of the executive branch would require fact-finding. As Jack Goldsmith has written, there may be reasonable concerns about prosecuting #POTUS under generally applicable statutes. But the Court can potentially address those concerns w/o a remand for (extensive) fact-finding.
E.G., it could say its holding does not extend to conduct related to (a) foreign affairs, or (b) powers textually assigned to #POTUS, like the pardon power or the power to recognize ambassadors....
Now even that isn't clear—is the president immune from a bribery prosecution for sale of pardons?
The point is that a ruling that addresses #SeparationOfPowers questions, like the ones Jack Goldsmith has raised, doesn't necessarily require remand & fact-finding.
So we should not assume that a #SCOTUS ruling that isn't a total rejection of #immunity across the board, which is what the DC Circuit's decision was, would necessarily #delay the proceedings further.
(But if anyone can find a way to create further delays it’s #Trump & his friends on The Court)
Add comment