All should be quiet on the January 6 front, at least when it comes to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case in district court against President Trump. That’s because the case is suspended as higher courts weigh various appeals.

It isn’t quiet, though, as a behind-the-scenes clash between the 45th president and the special counsel seeking to convict him spilled into public view on Judge Tanya Chutkan’s docket. Dueling filings paint a picture of Mr. Trump as savoring delay and Mr. Smith as anxious to accelerate.

The case is being “held in abeyance” while higher courts hear Mr. Trump’s argument that he is protected from prosecution by the long reach of presidential immunity. Judge Chutkan ruled that the 45th president is not entitled to that umbrella, a decision that is now being considered by both the Supreme Court and the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. 

Even Judge Chutkam, otherwise tenaciously committed to her scheduled trial date of March 4, has bowed to the necessity of a suspension while the all-important immunity question is decided. If Mr. Trump wins on that head, the entirety of the case would appear to be in jeopardy. Mr. Smith, though, does not seem to have put down his pencil. A brief “Notice of Service” informs Judge Chutkan that he has handed over a “Draft Exhibit List,” meeting a December 18 deadline that has since been indefinitely suspended. He explains that he complies with it anyway to “help ensure that trial proceeds promptly if and when the mandate returns.”

The special counsel makes no secret that he is litigating against delay just as vociferously as he is building his case against Mr. Trump. One of his deputies, Molly Gaston, writes to Judge Chutkan that “in light of the public’s strong interest in a prompt trial, the government will seek to ensure that trial proceeds as scheduled.” She adds that the government “will meet every pretrial deadline the Court has set for it,” regardless if they are in force.     

Mr. Trump’s team is not amused by this instance of prosecutorial punctiliousness. His lawyers filed their own brief accusing the special counsel of having “improperly and unlawfully attempted to advance this case” by shoveling materials their way. They accuse Mr. Smith of trying to “rush this case to an early and unconstitutional trial.” 

Reasoning that a stay means a stay and that any substantive engagement with Mr. Smith will advance it forward, Mr. Trump’s side refuses to “accept or review the present production or any additional productions” until Judge Chutkan announces that the case has resumed. The jurist has written that the “deadlines and proceedings” previously adumbrated are no longer in force.   

Arguments over the immunity issue are set for January 9 at the D.C. Circuit. One rider, though, Karen Henderson, would have delayed the hearing until after the Nine weighed in. She was outvoted by Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, nominated to the bench by Presidents Obama and Biden, respectively. That fracture reflects the case’s strange procedural posture, its simultaneous presence at all three levels of the federal judiciary.

Mr. Smith is insisting that the Supreme Court adopt the “extraordinary” measure of what is called “certiorari before judgment,” meaning that it hear the case before it has fully matured through lower courts. The justices, at least thus far, have shown a willingness to oblige, ordering Mr. Trump to put his argument for immunity to paper by tomorrow.