Judge in Trump’s federal election subversion case rejects defense effort to dismiss the prosecution
WASHINGTON — The federal judge presiding over the case election subversion case against former President Donald Trump on Saturday rejected a defense attempt to dismiss the charges based on claims he was being prosecuted for vengeful and political purposes.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is the first substantive order since the case was returned to her on Friday as a sequel to a groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling last month who granted broad immunity to former presidents and limited special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump.
In their motion to dismiss the charges, defense attorneys argued that Trump was mistreated because he was prosecuted, even as others who have challenged the election results have avoided criminal charges. Trump, the Republican nominee for president in 2024, also suggested that President Joe Biden and the Justice Department pursue prosecutions to prevent him from being re-elected.
But Chutkan rejected both arguments, saying Trump was not charged simply with challenging the election results, but instead with “knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the certification proceedings of the election.” She also said his lawyers had misread news media articles they had cited in arguing the prosecution was political in nature.
“After reviewing the evidence and defendant’s arguments, the court cannot conclude that he has met his burden of proving actual or suspected vindictiveness, and therefore sees no basis to dismiss this case on those grounds,” Chutkan wrote in her order.
Also on Saturday, she scheduled a status conference for August 16 to discuss next steps in the case.
The four-count indictment, filed in August 2023, accuses Trump of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden, by, among other things, harassing Vice President Mike Pence and asking him to block the formal certification of the electoral votes.
Trump’s lawyers argued that as a former president he could not be prosecuted. The case has been on hold since December while his appeal is heard in court.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for fundamental constitutional duties and are presumptively immune from prosecution for all other official acts. The justices sent the case back to Chutkan to determine which acts alleged in the indictment can remain in the prosecution and which should be thrown out.