Trump Indicted for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Donald Trump's team seems to have filed just before midnight.

Yes, they admitted that they missed the part of the order that said that the deadlines were 5:00 p.m. and ask for leave to file late, which Chutkan granted, with a pithy warning that "Going forward, the parties should seek any needed extensions of time before the deadline."

Roger Parloff finds it rather strange and unlikely to persuade Judge Chutkan, and he wonders if Trump "still hopes somehow to derail the government's 9/25 filing, perhaps by seeking mandamus" in order to prevent Jack Smith from making evidence public that would cast Trump in a bad light before the election. If Smith suspects the same thing, is there any reason he couldn't file ahead of schedule? Or is that just not done?

They certainly could, as the deadline is "on or before" 9/26 (not 9/25, as Roger mistakenly says). But there is no reason for them to do so, as there is nothing in Trump's filing that could derail that filing. As Roger notes "Trump’s filing does not meet ordinary standards for a motion to reconsider—zero has changed since 9/5—so he claims his motion is something unique: a 'motion to reconsider[] interlocutory decisions.'" Setting aside the fact that there is no such thing, the more important factor is that you can't just imbed a motion for reconsideration in a reply brief on another motion; you have to file a new motion and give the other side an opportunity to file a response. That's not only basic due process; it is basic common sense. There is nothing for Judge Chutkan to rule on, and there is no action or inaction that they could even purport to file a petition for mandamus on. If they tried, any judge (even Judge Cannon) would reject it. It is not something that they need to be concerned about.

Actually, Trump's lawyers have done the SCO a favor by providing a preview of Trump's position and thus giving the SCO a roadmap for how to best pose their arguments regarding immunity in their 9/26 brief. That's really the only result of that section of their reply brief.