Legal experts say that while the prosecution’s case in DC is weak, Trump may still face challenges in the election interference case.

President Donald Trump⁣ has good defenses available to him but that doesn’t mean he‍ will be treated fairly by the federal judge in Washington conducting his election interference trial, legal experts told The Epoch Times.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed to the​ U.S. District Court for⁣ the District of Columbia ⁣in 2014 by‌ President⁤ Barack Obama, has scheduled the trial on election obstruction‌ charges to begin on March 4, 2024.

Critics say Judge Chutkan has been unfair to those charged in the security breach and rioting at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that delayed congressional certification of⁣ the 2020 presidential election by a few hours. She has​ often imposed prison sentences on such defendants that are harsher than what ‍U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors have sought.

President Trump himself has said Judge Chutkan should​ be recused from the case and that the trial should be moved out of the nation’s⁤ capital because the jury pool will be filled with Democrats.

Trial Date

President⁢ Trump’s attorneys had asked‍ for a trial date in April 2026, which is long after the November 2024 election, but the ‌judge said the defense did not need ⁢that long to put its case together.

“Mr.⁢ Trump will have to make the trial date work, regardless ​of his schedule,” Judge Chutkan said.

The trial date is a⁤ political problem for President Trump, who ‌is campaigning for the presidency for the third time, because it falls the day before the Republican⁤ Party’s “Super Tuesday” primary contests in 15 states, including the convention delegate-rich ​states of Texas, California, and North Carolina.

President Trump and his supporters say that the‍ scheduling of the trial by the‍ Democrat-appointed judge constitutes interference in the 2024 election. His legal team may yet succeed in delaying the trial date if ‌it files‍ appeals in the U.S. ‌Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ⁣or in the​ Supreme Court, but ‍the outcome of any⁤ such⁣ appeals is⁢ uncertain.

There is not a constitutional crisis because President Trump is ⁤“not currently president,” so the ‌trials are not going to interfere with official duties, but ‍“to the extent that these⁤ indictments are ⁢interfering with the ability to conduct a presidential election, then yes, it is a constitutional crisis,” Attorney Curt Levey,‌ president of⁣ the Committee for Justice, a conservative legal advocacy nonprofit, told The ‌Epoch Times.

‘Outcome-Determinative Fraud’

The indictment (pdf) approved​ by the grand jury on Aug.⁣ 1 ‌states that after losing​ the 2020 presidential election, President Trump “spread lies that there had ⁢been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he ⁣had ​actually won. ​These claims were false, and the⁤ Defendant knew that‍ they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims⁢ appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of ⁤the election.”

President Trump ⁤“had a right,‍ like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that ‌there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to​ formally challenge the⁣ results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, ‌such as‍ by seeking recounts or audits⁤ of the popular vote in states or​ filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods ⁢of contesting the election results. ‌His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts,‌ audits,⁣ or⁤ legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.”

But after Election Day, he “also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In‌ so doing,⁤ the‌ Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

“a. A conspiracy to defraud the United‍ States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the⁣ lawful federal⁣ government function ⁤by which the results of the presidential election are collected, ‍counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. [section] 371;

“b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and ‍impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the‍ presidential election are counted and certified (‘the certification proceeding’), in violation of 18 U.S.C. [section] 1512(k); and

“c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. [section] 241.”

Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, is a law that dates back to the Reconstruction era. The provision was part of the Enforcement Act of 1870, one of the laws known as the Ku⁣ Klux Klan Acts that were ​enacted to ​protect the rights ⁣of blacks that were newly recognized by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, from infringement by once-powerful organizations such as the Klan.

In addition, the indictment ​states that President ‍Trump “attempted to,‍ and did, corruptly‌ obstruct and⁣ impede an ⁣official proceeding, ⁢that is, the certification to the election vote,” contrary to 18 ⁢U.S.C. ⁣section 1512(c)(2).

‘Difficult ‌Case’

Criminal defense attorney and former​ deputy district attorney⁢ David Gelman of Gelman Law in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said the ‌prosecution is going to have a hard time.

“I think it’s going to be a very difficult case ​for them to prove,” Mr. Gelman told The ⁣Epoch Times in an interview.

“Just conspiracy alone—I don’t know how they’re going to possibly prove that the president …⁣ conspired or agreed ⁤to commit an act‍ or​ an overt act ⁢in furtherance of a crime. … I don’t know how they’re going to do⁢ that,”⁤ he⁤ said.

“I ⁢think ⁤the federal government has a pretty high burden to prove here, where I‌ don’t think ‌they’re going​ to be successful in doing so,” he continued.

Trying President Trump as early as March 2024 is “impossible,” he said. “I would bet everything I got that that will not occur.”

The prosecution disclosed almost 11 million documents to the defense and “there is just no ⁢way ‍that his legal ‍team is going‌ to be able to … look through all the discovery,” prepare the​ president, and have⁤ a trial in that⁣ timeframe.

“It would violate⁤ his due process ⁣rights,” he said.

There may be⁢ three other Trump trials scheduled for around ‌the same time,⁣ which are also being rushed, and this fact in itself will spark appeals, he said,⁤ adding the other‌ trials are also unlikely to be moving forward at that time.

Immunity

Mr. Levey said ⁣Judge Chutkan is “hostile to Trump.”

She is likely to reject any argument that President Trump⁣ is immune from prosecution based on his activities being related to his job as president, Mr. Levey said.

If ⁤any unfavorable rulings the judge may make are​ appealed, the U.S. Court of⁣ Appeals for the District⁣ of Columbia ⁣Circuit, which is “politicized” and “leans left,” ⁣will probably rule against President Trump,​ so “it’s ultimately going to be up to⁤ the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Levey‍ said the Supreme Court has been ⁢“all over the place with presidential immunity, and that’s because it’s not in the Constitution,” although it is implied that the president “has to⁣ have a ⁢reasonable amount of immunity in order to do his job.”

“The⁢ court has tried to strike a balance between justice‍ and the ‌fact ⁣that the president has to function,” he said.

“You‍ don’t want to chill free speech, you don’t want to chill the decision-making ability of a president, so you ​have to steer very clear​ of anything that can be ⁤within the president’s legitimate⁣ functions. Otherwise,‌ you’re going to chill the decision-making ‍ability of this and future presidents,” he added.

Although the Supreme Court ⁢has ruled on issues related to presidents and executive branch employees being⁢ sued⁤ or criminally investigated, this is the first time that a former ‍president has ever been indicted before.

Complicating matters further is the fact that President Trump is running to get his old job back and may be president again in‍ January 2025. If the prosecutions are ‌still in progress at​ the outset of a ​second Trump administration, it is unclear what will happen to them.

Back in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that⁢ a president enjoys absolute immunity.