ATLANTA (CN) — Former President Donald Trump's lead Atlanta attorney, Steve Sadow, made his first in-person courtroom appearance Friday in a hearing on various motions filed by himself and other defense counsel in the sprawling racketeering case.
Sadow objected to the state's proposed trial date of Aug. 5, 2024, arguing it would conflict not only with the three other trials involving Trump starting in March, but also his presidential campaign if he is chosen as the Republican nominee.
"Can you imagine the notion of the Republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is in some form or fashion in a courtroom defending himself?" Sadow asked the judge.
"That would be the most effective election interference in the United States."
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who launched the investigation in 2021, said that if the trial does kick off in August as she has requested, she expects it to go through 2025.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee asked Sadow during Friday's hearing if he believed Trump could be tried in 2025 if he won the presidential election. Sadow argued the trial should then be postponed until after Trump leaves office.
Special prosecutor Nathan Wade objected, saying “this trial does not constitute election interference.”
“This is moving forward with the business of Fulton County. I don’t think that it in any way impedes defendant Trump’s ability to campaign or do whatever he needs to do in order to seek office,” Wade said.
William Parker, who is representing one of Trump's former campaign attorneys John Eastman, also fought the proposed trial date. Eastman faces nine counts related to testifying before the Georgia Legislature that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election and for aiding in the plan to reject the official Democratic electors in Georgia in favor of "alternate" Trump electors.
Parker asked the judge to consider a possible severance of the other remaining 14 defendants into two groups so that they can have their trials completed within 2024. He noted Trump may be the Republican presidential nominee when the trial begins, and that "without defendant Trump in the courtroom, the U.S. Secret Service will not be involved in providing enhanced security and the trials will proceed faster.”
Prosecutors still argued in favor of trying the group together as one. But McAfee indicated that he was open to the idea of splitting up the defendants into at least two groups in order to ease the logistics of a trial involving numerous defendants. McAfee had previously severed two of the original 19 defendants, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, to be tried together before they accepted plea deals.
Counsel representing Jeffrey Clark, a former senior Justice Department official who advocated for Trump's claims of election fraud and faces two charges, and Mark Meadows, the former White House Chief of Staff also facing two charges, asked the judge for an extension of motion deadlines, which could also possibly delay the proposed trial date.
Meadows' attorney James Durham argued that the current timeline for the case conflicts with Meadows' appeal of a federal judge's rejection of his bid to move his case to federal court. The appeal is scheduled to be argued before the 11th Circuit on Dec. 15.
Several other procedural motions from defense attorneys were discussed during Friday's daylong hearing, with most seeking to dismiss various counts of the indictment.
Sadow argued the prosecution of the former president is premised on political speech and expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment.
McAfee has already dismissed similar First Amendment challenges from Chesebro and Powell, citing multiple court cases that ruled a factual record must first be established before such challenges can be considered. But Sadow argued the judge can consider a First Amendment challenge before trial if the facts laid out in the indictment are undisputed by the defendants. But prosecutors pushed back, arguing the facts remain disputed by defendants.
Chris Anulewicz, an attorney for defendant Robert Cheeley, argued prosecutors were taking a dangerous step toward criminalizing constitutionally protected political speech, namely Cheeley's and others' questioning of the 2020 election results in court and before the Georgia Legislature.
He referred to the recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore that was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. "It was resolved through the courts, as it should have. No one went to jail," Anulewicz said. The attorney also referenced lawsuits that arose after Stacey Abrams lost her bid for governor of Georgia to Republican Brian Kemp related to purported voter suppression. "She wasn't prosecuted and shouldn't have been," he said.
Prosecutors argued the First Amendment doesn’t protect some categories of speech that include criminal conduct, fraud or imminent threats to the government.
Also during the hearing, Sadow said he planned to file a "presidential immunity motion" in the weeks ahead seeking to get the charges against Trump dropped because he was president at the time of many of the events listed in the indictment.
The former president faces 13 charges in the sweeping indictment handed down in August, which says those charged "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump."
Follow @Megwiththenews
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
