This Is Going to Be a Mess
Forget the ides of March. Beware the first week of March.
At a hearing this morning in Washington, D.C., Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that former President Donald Trump’s federal trial for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election will begin on March 4, 2024, with jury selection. The following day, March 5, is Super Tuesday, the day when the greatest number of delegates in the Republican primary is up for grabs.
That means that Trump could become the presumptive GOP nominee in the 2024 election at the same time as his lawyers are in court for his trial for seeking to steal the last election. Neither political scientists nor legal scholars have really anticipated such a scenario, so no technical term exists to describe it, but I can suggest one: a huge mess.
[David A. Graham: Trump attempted a brazen, dead-serious attack on American democracy]
Chutkan’s date is two months later than what Special Counsel Jack Smith had requested, but it’s more than two years earlier than April 2026, the timing proposed by Trump’s defense attorneys. Smith obtained the indictment, which charges Trump with four felonies, earlier this month. The charges include conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, but they all relate to Trump’s months-long attempt to stay in office despite losing to Joe Biden, culminating in the January 6 insurrection.
Today’s hearing gave a preview of the chippy and contentious trial ahead. Chutkan wasted no time in dismissing the Trump team’s argument that he cannot go on trial during the midst of an election campaign. “Setting a trial date does not depend and should not depend on a defendant’s personal and professional obligations,” she said. “Mr. Trump, like any defendant will have to make the trial date work, regardless of his schedule.” Against complaints that the case was unusually complex, she noted that it involves a single defendant and, despite its historic nature, doesn’t seem all that sprawling.
Trump’s defense attorney John Lauro fiercely argued against the prosecution’s schedule, drawing a warning from Chutkan to “take the temperature down.” He called Smith’s proposal “a request for a show trial, not a speedy trial,” and protested the judge’s ultimate decision. “This man’s liberty and life is at stake, and he deserves adequate representation! He’s no different than any American!” Lauro said. The prosecutor Molly Gaston, meanwhile, mocked Lauro’s argument, noting that Trump’s attorneys had previously called the case a “regurgitation” of the House January 6 committee’s work.
[David A. Graham: The criminal-justice system and the election are not going to get along]
The March 4 date could still slip. Lauro said he would file a motion to dismiss the case and others arguing that Trump enjoyed executive immunity or was being subjected to selective prosecution. But the schedule as it stands now presents an interesting strategic dilemma for Trump: Does he attempt to delay further, and risk pushing the trial into the general-election campaign season? Or does he prefer to get it over with and either reap the benefits of an acquittal or have more time to spin a conviction?
One common thread through all four of Trump’s felony indictments is that he has claimed they are “election inference” on the part of Democrats who want to hobble his attempt to return to office. This is a doubly ironic claim, given that in this case Trump is literally charged with attempting to thwart the will of voters. It is a demand that he be handled with kid gloves while doing his own dirty work with the gloves off.
Yet the Super Tuesday confluence also points to a second irony: Some evidence suggests that the indictments are actually helping Trump, at least in the Republican primary. Since his legal troubles began to ramp up, so has his standing in polling. My colleague Russell Berman notes that this may be overstated, and a real trial, much less conviction, might start to hurt him. But a trial that starts in the thick of the GOP primary might not be the worst thing for Trump. It will mean that most Republican voters won’t get a chance to see the case against him before they cast a vote, but will ensure a chance for him to raise a fuss (and funds) about it.
[Read: What the polls may be getting wrong about Trump]
The bizarre calculus here shows how, as I wrote in May, the political and criminal-justice systems are not only not designed to work together, but are in fact constructed to pretend the other doesn’t exist. Chutkan’s ruling guarantees that the fact of the trial itself, and not just the substance of the charges against Trump, will be a central element of the Republican primary. The only safe prediction for how that might play out is chaos.