Trump election case judge faces timeline that is tough — but not impossible: legal analyst

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin has observed that former President Donald Trump "always wins when he creates delay." And Trump has made a concerted effort to create delay in special counsel Jack Smith's election interference indictment by claiming that the case should be dismissed because he enjoys "presidential immunity."

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump's immunity claim, but oral arguments aren't scheduled until April 22 — and a decision may not come until late June. This increases the chance the case won't go to trial until after the 2024 presidential election.

In an article published by Politico on March 2, legal writer Ankush Khardori emphasizes that the High Court's decision puts a lot of pressure on Tanya Chutkan — the federal judge appointed to the case. But according to Khardori, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a trial starting before the election.

READ MORE: Trump is far weaker than we think: legal expert

"Here is the reality — tentative and messy, perhaps, but true nonetheless: Trump's trial in Washington can still start before November given the time available on the calendar," Khardori explains. "Trump’s trial also should start before November given the intense public interest. Whether it will start before November at this point will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court and presiding U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — who may soon have to confront one of the most challenging and politically controversial legal questions in American history as the result of a confluence of events that she had nothing to do with."

The legal writer continues, "Put simply, will she really force a presidential nominee to sit in court in the final days of a campaign rather than hit the trail in Wisconsin?"

Khardori observes that a "potential ruling in June" would "leave relatively little time for a trial before the November election."

"Indeed, the conservative justices are arguably engaged in their own form of election interference by potentially slow-walking a relatively straight-forward legal proceeding in a way that could ultimately swing this year's presidential election," Khardori writes. "And there are still ways the Supreme Court can delay the proceedings further. While it is likely to be too much for even the conservative justices to endorse Trump's absurd argument for immunity, they could send the case back to Chutkan with instructions to conduct some further analysis of the allegations against Trump to ascertain whether some of them might plausibly be covered by a newly created zone of presidential immunity for crimes committed while in office."

READ MORE: How the Supreme Court moved America 'a bit closer' to political 'Armageddon'': legal expert

Khardori stresses that as challenging as it is, Chutkan should "hold the line" if possible.

"It should not have fallen to her to make this happen, but if Trump's criminal case comes back to her this summer from the Supreme Court, she should do her best to put the case on the quickest and most reasonable trial schedule that she can devise — even if some on the Supreme Court are working overtime to help Trump to prevent this from happening," Khardori argues. "The law, public opinion and common sense are all on her side."

READ MORE: 'Injustice': Experts condemn Supreme Court’s 'fundamentally corrupt' Trump decision

Read Ankush Khardori's full analysis for Politico at this link.