DOJ asks judge to bar Trump from ‘injecting politics’ into DC election trial

The ex-president’s 5 March trial date is on hold while he appeals Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rejection of his immunity claims

Prosecutors with the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith have asked the judge overseeing the 2020 election subversion case against Donald Trump to prohibit the ex-president from raising “politicised claims” and “irrelevant issues” when the case goes to trial before a Washington, DC jury next year.

In the 20-page filing submitted before US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday, Senior Assistant Special Counsels Molly Gaston and Thomas Windom say that Mr Trump “has made clear his intent to introduce evidence and make arguments that are improper – whether because they have no bearing on his guilt or innocence, are otherwise irrelevant, or are substantially more prejudicial than probative” and ask that such evidence or arguments be excluded from presentation to a jury.

Although the 5 March 2024 start date for Mr Trump’s trial has been stayed while the DC Circuit Court of Appeals considers the ex-president’s appeal of Judge Chutkan’s rejection of his claims of presidential immunity, the prosecutors under Mr Smith have continued filing documents with the court to enable a speedy trial should the stay be lifted.

They note that Mr Trump “has made unsupported and politicized claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, indicated that he intends to explore irrelevant issues related to the Government’s investigation, and complained that the grand jury’s indictment and the Court’s trial date will interfere with his political activities” and argue that “none” of those issues have any bearing on whether Mr Trump is guilty or not guilty of the charges against him.

Continuing, the prosecutors identify multiple categories of “improper” claims or irrelevant evidence that should barred from being presented to a jury, including any “evidence ... arguments or framing questions” meant to “advance a theory of selective or vindictive prosecution, or to otherwise improperly inject politics into the trial”.

Noting that the ex-president has already made what they describe as “a baseless claim of selective and vindictive prosecution” in a previous motion to dismiss filed with the court, Ms Gaston and Mr Windom point out that the charges against Mr Trump were levied by a grand jury drawn from citizens of the District of Columbia, contrary to his claims that they were “directed by the current president as a form of election interference”.

They also point to another district court ruling against ex-Trump aide Peter Navarro, who was barred from making arguments to a jury that “repackaged” his failed selective prosecution claim when he was tried on Contempt of Congress charges earlier this year.

Ms Gaston and Mr Windom have also asked Judge Chutkan to prohibit Mr Trump from any “attempt to suggest or argue to the jury that it should acquit based on principles of immunity or the First Amendment,” citing her earlier ruling denying motions to dismiss the case on those grounds, and to bar Mr Trump from raising various conspiracy theories regarding the January 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters, including criticism of security preparations at the Capitol that day, blaming agents provocateurs, or alleging foreign interference.

They note that Mr Trump “appears poised to blame undercover agents, government informants, or confidential human sources ... for the violence at the Capitol” that day, and called those claims “irrelevant to any charge or valid defence”.