The moves by two of President Trump’s attorneys for speedy trials in the Georgia case suddenly brings into focus the possibility that their interests diverge from his — a prospect also signaled by Mr. Trump’s bid to sever his trial from theirs altogether. 

The question is, though, whether this rush by the attorneys — Sidney Powell and Kenenth Chesebro — will help or hurt Mr. Trump when it comes time for him to stand trial in the Peach Tree State. By pushing for separate trials — and, possibly, pleas — they could be telegraphing that their interests diverge from their former boss’s, a gap prosecutors are well-trained to exploit. 

If the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, had her druthers, she would try all 19 defendants together, just as they were charged in the same indictment. Her case, one of racketeering, is founded on the notion of an “enterprise” in which Ms. Powell and Mr. Chesebro are critical and, allegedly, criminal components. Ms. Willis’s preference is underscored by the prosecutor’s move to try all the defendants on the accelerated schedule. 

As one commentator and former White House special counsel, Norman Eisen, posted to X, “If Jack Smith’s tightly focused election interference indictment vs Trump is Hemingway, Fani Willis’s sweeping 19 defendant charging document is Dickens.” Never mind that an abridged Dickens is not quite a fully realized Hemingway.  

The advantage inherent in a rapid trial is less clear for Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell. They could feel that their cases are stronger without the entanglements of their 17 fellow defendants, chief among them Mr. Trump. By making their arguments first, they will have the benefit of a cleaner canvas, even as they risk being blindsided by Ms. Willis’s arguments. They could be taking one for the team, or maneuvering for an early exit.  

The 45th president is taking notice, as his motion to withdraw from the speedy trial request stands in contrast to his passivity, at least so far, in respect of angling for federal court. As his co-defendants have deluged the docket, Mr. Trump has hung back.  

Even as Mr. Trump’s onetime chief of staff, Mark Meadows, took the stand for hours to push for a federal venue, Mr. Trump’s attorneys appear more attuned to time than place. In the January 6 case, one of them, John Lauro, told Judge Tanya Chutkan that her March 4 trial date “will deny President Trump the opportunity to have effective assistance of counsel.”

Georgia, unlike the District of Columbia, has a speedy trial law — an enhanced version of the constitutional guarantee — that, on a request of a defendant, mandates that jury selection begin “at the court term at which the indictment or accusation is filed or at the next succeeding regular court term thereafter.” If this request is not granted, the “defendant shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offense charged in the indictment or accusation.”

Judge Scott McAfee avoided that outcome for Ms. Willis by granting Mr. Chesebro an October 23 trial. Ms. Powell, who filed her motion later, has not yet been assigned a date. The two lawyers have been charged for different roles in the alleged conspiracy — Mr. Chesebro for his role in the alternate elector scheme and Ms. Powell for invading election machinery at Coffee County. 

Both of their cases could be previewed by that of a third defendant, John Eastman, who while seeking to remain a free man is also in California endeavoring to hang on to his law license, of which the state bar is seeking to strip him. The Washington Post reports that an outside expert in that proceeding found that “no reasonable attorney exercising appropriate diligence in the circumstances would adopt” Mr. Eastman’s positions regarding the 2020 vote.

Then again, too, many of the great shifts in our legal thinking and precedents came about when a lawyer had a new theory or different insight. A client is always owed “zealous advocacy” from her lawyer.  

Georgia’s rule of professional conduct for attorneys warns that a “lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.” Its criminal law, though, warns that “clients shall not be relieved from their liability for damages and penalties imposed by law on the ground that they acted under the advice of their counsel.”  

Mr. Eastman’s tribulations could spell trouble for Mr. Chesebro, who in a series of memos obtained by the January 6 committee cogitated on those same legal  conjectures that Mr. Eastman presented to Vice President Pence, who declined to follow their advice and instead confined himself to tasks that are laid out in the Constitution and that led to the count that gave President Biden his victory.  

Mr. Trump is likely to argue at trial, as he has already ventured on social media, that he acted on advice of counsel. That case could be undermined if juries at the District of Columbia have judged their interventions to have been criminal, even as an acquittal could bolster the former president’s fortunes. 

Most damaging of all, though, could be if Ms. Willis granted a plea deal to one or both of Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell, which would likely involve testimony on  the subject of Mr. Trump’s guilt. A televised trial for the attorneys, though — that is the norm in Georgia — could be used by Mr. Trump to argue that his own jury pool, and trial, will be tainted by the exposure.