Expert reveals questions Jack Smith's team may have amid delay in Trump's election case
A legal expert explained Friday what outstanding presidential immunity-related questions may have prompted a three-week delay in pre-trial hearings in Donald Trump's 2020 election fraud case.
Judge Tanya Chutkan granted special counsel Jack Smith's request to delay the case as it reviews the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. Trump's team did not oppose such a delay.
Speaking to reporter Ali Vitali, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin said unanswered questions likely led to the pause.
"At the Department of Justice, there is a divergence of opinions about what the best way forward is," she began. "You can look at the fact that there have been several weeks since the supreme court opinion, and save yourself as maybe Meryl Streep's character did, why is no one ready?!"
Read also: Prison president: How Donald Trump could serve from behind bars
On the other hand, Rubin said the lack of information makes it difficult to find the "appropriate path forward."
"We know that the former president is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of immunity for his official acts. Think about how much of that wasn't clarified by the court. What counts as an official act?" she asked. "If you can rebut the presumption, how are you supposed to do that? What evidence counts as sufficient to rebut that presumption? What factors should a court consider?"
Those questions give her a broader understanding of why Smith might be scratching his head about the next steps.
She said there's a nearly zero percent chance the case heads to a trial by the election.
"Prosecutors are always thinking about how to ensure that the case gets tried. Of course, the election is a deadline that matters because if former President Trump is reelected, there is a general assumption that he will make this case go away once he is inaugurated again," said Rubin. That doesn't appear to the Justice Department's focus.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal about Donald Trump's classified documents case on Aug. 27.
See the comments from Rubin below or at the link here.