The judge in charge of President-elect Donald Trump’s time-capsulated hush-money case gave prosecutors all they asked for on Friday, but only part of what the defense requested.

Alvin Bragg, the district attorney for Manhattan, received the penultimate hand. Additionally, special counsel Jack Smith is a significant non-player with one pocket ace in the soon-to-be-shelved case.

The case against Trump, which is centered in New York City, may now involve the intersection of two previously distinct prosecutions in ways that are legally significant.

Associated coverage:

Smith, who is subject to DOJ regulations, is stepping down from the Jan. 6 case, which is headquartered in Washington, DC, as was previously reported.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan swiftly formalized the special counsel’s self-imposed deadline of December 2 for a final status report, which was set just days after Trump’s election victory.

The language of the vacate motion states that the Government will file a status report or otherwise notify the Court of the outcome of its considerations by December 2, 2024. Defense attorneys have been consulted by the government and have not raised any objections to this request.

Of fact, the public has no idea what exact procedural stance Smith will adopt on December 2. However, the practical result is inevitable: the federal lawsuit is over.

According to what the state and Trump agreed upon, the business record falsification case against the 45th and 47th presidents is essentially, or at least for the foreseeable future, still pending.

Trump’s lawyers in New York are keen to see how Smith will defend ending the case he spent years and millions of dollars prosecuting, as was reported earlier this week.

Attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove expressed their desire to look into the DOJ’s stances in federal cases that are likely to be dismissed or otherwise dissolved in a letter motion.

In light of this, Trump’s team asked for a December 20 deadline to submit their updated motion to dismiss the hush-money lawsuit.

It seems that Blanche and Bove planned to use Smith’s own defenses when they submitted their final dismissal motion. They wanted a few weeks to think through their arguments and possibilities.

Justice Juan Merchan of the New York Supreme Court rejected the defense’s plea in a ruling that granted relief and established timelines. Rather, the judge allowed Trump to submit his move to dismiss until December 2.

According to Merchan’s brief Friday order, the defendant’s request must be submitted by Monday, December 2, 2024, at the latest. The deadline for the People’s response is Monday, December 9, 2024, at the latest. Rebuttal briefs will not be accepted by the Court.

Naturally, Smith’s status report on the Jan. 6 case in the federal district is due on that date. Given this schedule, Trump’s New York lawyers will probably have much less than twenty-four hours to consider Smith’s arguments and include them in their final move to dismiss the hush-money lawsuit in the interest of justice.

It may be a coincidence that the chronology matches Bragg’s temporal request in the case, which was submitted through a motion filed just hours prior. Regarding the deadline for Trump to submit his last motion, the district attorney’s office remained silent. Nonetheless, the prosecution asked Merchan to give the government until December 9 to respond.

In addition to the severe scheduling issues, the Manhattan judge approved the parties’ requests for a variety of relief.

In the end, Bragg and Trump agreed that the court should stay all remaining deadlines in the case, defer ruling on a previous motion to dismiss, and postpone sentencing indefinitely.

The judge was glad to comply.

There are now only two more motions in the case, which will most likely be heard in 2029. Bragg s motion is, by definition, contingent on the arguments made in Trump s; however, the defense suggested that their motion be contingent on how Smith fords the river.

The end result: two previously unrelated prosecutors may make life significantly easier, or slightly more difficult, for the next president s attorneys as all of the lawyers involved go their separate ways.

Source

Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!