- A federal judge rejected an effort by former President Donald Trump to hold special counsel Jack Smith in contempt in Trump's criminal election interference case.
- Attorneys for Trump accused Smith of violating a court order by producing evidence and filing a motion in the case after its deadlines had been paused.
- Judge Tanya Chutkan did grant Trump's request that Smith and other parties must get her permission before filing any more pretrial motions.
A federal judge on Thursday rejected an effort by former President Donald Trump to hold special counsel Jack Smith in contempt for submitting court filings in Trump's criminal election interference case while the case is paused.
The order to stay the case pending Trump's appeal of an unfavorable ruling "did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit" Smith's actions, Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a Washington, D.C., federal court order.
"Staying the deadline for a filing is not the same thing as affirmatively prohibiting it," she wrote.
Get Tri-state area news delivered to your inbox.> Sign up for NBC New York's News Headlines newsletter.
But Chutkan granted Trump's request that Smith and other parties must get her permission before filing any more pretrial motions.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung in a statement characterized that decision as a "strong rebuke" of Smith. But Chutkan's order noted that the measure "does not reflect a determination that the Government has violated any of its clear and unambiguous terms or acted in bad faith."
Money Report
Attorneys for Trump had accused Smith of violating a court order by producing evidence and filing a motion in the federal election case after its deadlines had been stayed.
Smith has sought to expedite the case in which Trump is accused of illegally conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. The case is currently set to begin trial in early March.
The case in federal district court was automatically put on hold last month while Trump appealed Chutkan's refusal to dismiss his criminal charges on the grounds of presidential immunity.
A panel of federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments last week on Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" for official presidential acts.
Don't miss these stories from CNBC PRO:
- Tesla versus BYD: Analysts prefer one of them — giving it up to over 70% upside
- Goldman says small caps to beat large caps this year. 10 cheap smaller stocks to buy
- DoubleLine's Gundlach sees 'very painful' economic downturn, S&P 500 may be forming 'double top'
- 'One of the best valuations for AI': Buy the dip in this Big Tech stock, strategist says
