Even as the former president and Republican frontrunner ramps up his effort to alchemize his unparalleled legal peril to help his presidential bid, Americans are likely to learn crucial new details on the date and the substance of the trials of Donald Trump.
After the remarkable theatrics and political manoeuvring that resulted in the revelation of Trump’s booking mug image last week, the drama over Trump’s quadruple criminal indictments is entering a new chapter with two important hearings on Monday, one in Georgia and one in Washington.
At a hearing on former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ effort to get his state case shifted to federal court, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is sketching the first significant evidentiary arguments in any of the cases facing Trump. In a comprehensive racketeering complaint claiming a broad conspiracy to affect the result of the 2020 election, Meadows, Trump, and 17 other aides, ex-officials, and lawyers have been accused. The former chief of staff for the White House was the first witness summoned after the session began.
At the same time, Special Counsel Jack Smith and President Trump’s legal team launched a status hearing in Washington, DC, before Judge Tanya Chutkan to argue about when to have a trial in the federal investigation into Trump’s alleged attempt to prevent now-President Joe Biden from taking office. Smith had asked for the trial to begin on January 2; this would be two weeks before Trump faces his first major challenge in the 2024 primary election, in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. The former president’s team lobbied for and was given a considerably later deadline of April 2026. Both plans were rejected by Chutkan, who was supposed to schedule a trial hearing for later on Monday, because of how far apart they were. She also stressed that the trial schedule wouldn’t be affected by Trump’s other commitments. The previous president was not compelled to show up to the trial.
Trump is doing the impossible by running for president of the United States while on trial for many criminal offences, and the two sessions will shed light on crucial aspects of the obstacles he faces in doing so. In 2019, the former president may spend as much time in court as he does barnstorming early-voting states, and Monday’s hearings in two cities will provide as a taste of the strain on Trump and his staff and the drain on resources that will ensue. Even if Trump wins one case, he may lose badly in another, increasing the likelihood of a conviction before voters go to the polls in November 2024, and the two hearings highlight this scary legal equation.
Trump’s efforts to use indictments as political weapons are ramping up.
As Trump’s accusations of political persecution at the hands of the Biden administration reach new heights, both sides will engage in new legal manoeuvring in the coming months.
After Trump surrendered at the Fulton County jail on Thursday, his staff wasted little time in turning his mug image into cash. Trump, who has frequently claimed almost unfettered powers as president, likened the Biden administration’s pursuit of him to the tyranny the United States rejected in its fight for independence, a claim he made in fundraising pleas over the weekend.
After booking the former president on Thursday, the Trump campaign said on Saturday that they had raised $7.1 million. The next set of quarterly fundraising accounts will be released, at which point we can attempt to verify that amount.
All eyes will be on the many trials in the coming days, but as is so frequently the case with Trump, the size of the spectacle may obscure the singular gravity of the situation. Trump claims he is innocent of all 91 counts against him unless proven guilty. However, he is the first ex-president to face criminal charges, and he is doing so while leading his party’s nomination race and perhaps serving a second term even as a convicted felon. Both the federal election subversion lawsuit and the Georgia action allege that Trump used his immense position as president to try to deny the right to vote to some Americans.
Case of Georgia will be put to the test for the first time in Meadows.
It is not Trump himself who will be testifying at the Georgia hearing, but rather Meadows. The former chief of staff of the White House wants his case transferred to federal court, where he has a higher chance of having it dismissed on the basis that his conduct after the 2020 election was within the scope of his official duties. Willis has constructed a massive racketeering case in which 19 defendants, including Meadows and Trump, are involved.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, who received the call from Trump in January 2021, has been subpoenaed to testify, along with two other lawyers who were on the line. Trump ordered Raffensperger to “find” the votes to overturn the departing president’s loss to Biden in the pivotal swing state.
On Monday, Trump will have a preview of a potential motion to have his case transferred to federal court, where he may find a more receptive jury pool. Willis, who had wanted a March 2024 trial date, may not be able to bring the lawsuit before the 2024 election if it takes a long time in pre-trial litigation in the Georgia case.
Former New Jersey governor and Trump opponent Chris Christie said on Sunday’s “Face the Nation” on CBS that Meadows might have a case, but that it wouldn’t change the outcome.
I don’t think it will make a material difference in how a jury is required to make these decisions at trial whether Mark Meadows wins that motion or not, Christie said. Regardless of the conclusion in the Meadows case, several legal experts have cautioned that this should not be taken as a guarantee of how the courts would rule on a similar request from Trump.
Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland and a member of the select committee that looked into the January 6 attack on the Capitol when the House was still controlled by the Democrats, indicated on Sunday that Meadows might not be successful in moving his case to federal court. Raskin stated on AWN’s “State of the Union” with Dana Bash, “There is no question that the state has the power to prosecute someone who is a federal official or a federal employee.”
“You can just think about a federal official employee who engages in bank robbery or murder, obviously the state would get to prosecute them,” Raskin argued. He also said that the case will turn on whether or not Meadows was “actually engaged in the work of the federal government and he was acting pursuant to a federal policy.”
A trial date for the Special Counsel’s alleged election-related interference is scheduled to be set soon.
This month, Trump pled not guilty to four felony charges stemming from his attempts to overturn the election, all of which stem from the FBI investigation conducted by Smith. There has been a lot of debate about this case already. Chutkan has cautioned Trump that his status as a criminal defendant takes precedence over his conduct as a presidential contender and that Trump’s First Amendment rights are not “absolute.” This came after Trump had criticised Smith and Chutkan heavily on multiple platforms.
perhaps if Trump’s camp believes the evidence is so massive that it will take months or perhaps years to prepare for the trial, the judge has proven that while she is recognised for rigorously preserving the rights of defendants, she wants to move the process along.
Trump’s legal team is also complaining that the trial date recommended by Smith conflicts with proceedings in other criminal and civil cases in which their client is involved. Trump has pleaded not guilty in the business accounting case arising out of a hush money payment to an adult film star that will be tried in Manhattan next year and in a separate case brought by Smith in Florida over his alleged mishandling of national security secrets among the classified documents he hoarded at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
In the federal election subversion case, Smith intends to begin selecting a jury in the month of December. The mob attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters would be three years ago on January 2 if the trial were to start on his preferred date of January 2.
