Washington: US judge on Thursday accused lawyers for Donald Trump of attempting to prevent potentially damaging new evidence in the 2020 election subversion case against the Republican former president from becoming public before the Nov. 5 election.
Trump lawyer John Lauro objected to a proposal from prosecutors to detail their evidence as they argue that the case survives a US Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
"It strikes me that what you’re trying to do is affect presentation of evidence in this case so as not to impinge on an election," US District Judge Tanya Chutkan told Lauro, adding that she is "not concerned with the electoral schedule."
Trump, who did not attend the hearing, faces four criminal charges that accuse him of using false claims of voter fraud to undermine the election results and thwart certification of his loss to Democratic President Joe Biden.
Lauro said it would be "unfair" to allow US Special Counsel Jack Smith to present a detailed view of the case, especially at a "sensitive time" ahead of the presidential election where Trump faces Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
Chutkan did not set a timeline for resolving the issue at the hearing.
Lauro said Trump's defense should first move to throw out the charges, arguing that a grand jury that brought a revised indictment against Trump last month heard evidence barred by the Supreme Court's ruling.
The new indictment, brought in August, included the same four charges as the one obtained last year by Smith, but dropped allegations the Supreme Court found could not remain part of the case.
Trump, through his lawyers, pleaded not guilty to charges in the revised indictment.
Chutkan weighed dueling proposals from Smith, who is seeking to press the case forward, and Trump, who is pushing to delay action until after the election. The Supreme Court directed Chutkan to decide whether any other portions of the case must be tossed out.
The case had been delayed for months while Trump pursued his immunity claim. He has argued that the prosecution as well as other legal cases against him are politically motivated attempts to undermine his presidential campaign.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in July that former presidents are presumed to be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their official responsibilities as president.
Smith has argued that all the remaining allegations are not covered by the immunity ruling and can proceed to trial.
Prosecutors have said that they are prepared to file court papers laying out their argument “at any time the court deems appropriate.”
Trump’s lawyers, meanwhile, have suggested that Chutkan should not begin weighing the impact of the immunity ruling until December, after the election.