The federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump has taken a significant turn as Judge Tanya Chutkan outlined a key schedule that sets the stage for pivotal legal developments just ahead of the 2024 presidential election. At the center of this timeline is the public release of potentially explosive evidence, including grand jury transcripts, which prosecutors aim to unveil in late September.
The precise date to watch is September 26, when the special counsel, Jack Smith, is expected to file critical documents. These materials, though not immediately available to the public, could contain vital evidence that might reshape public perception of the former president’s involvement in the 2020 election subversion efforts. While the defense sought to delay the release of such evidence until after November’s election, Judge Chutkan has leaned toward a more expedited timeline, indicating that this material could be made public before voters head to the polls—though likely with some redactions.
Some are arguing that the decision could be an attempt to damage the former president in the court of public opinion:
Guys, it’s not a win that the J6 case against Donald Trump is not going to trial before the election.
What Chutkan did today by taking the rare—unprecedented?—step of allowing DOJ to file an “opening brief” on additional immunity questions is a way to put Trump on trial without…
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 5, 2024
There were also reports that Judge Chutkan’s behavior was unprofessional. In a long thread, independent journalist Julie Kelly detailed what took place:
“Hearing in Jack Smith’s J6 indictment against Donald Trump just ended. It is a travesty that cameras are not allowed in federal courtrooms so the American people can see what an unprepared, intemperate, smug, and condescending judge Tanya Chutkan is. The public would be outraged at her highly partisan and aggressive handling of this unprecedented case. Chutkan, reversed by the Supreme Court and criticized by the chief justice for rushing her immunity order, came out swinging this morning,” she wrote online.
Adding:
Not only is she clearly agitated by SCOTUS immunity ruling, it is unclear whether she even read it.
On a number of occasions, she argued with John Lauro, Trump’s defense attorney, about the elements of the opinion. “That’s not how I read it,” she said when misinterpreting what the opinion said.
At one point, during a discussion about mandatory appeal based on any other immunity decision she makes, Chutkan opined that “there will be a reversal (on her future immunity order) no matter what I do.”
That is a dangerous sign. What Chutkan suggested is she will recklessly handle pending immunity questions related to Trump’s comms with VP Pence because she feels SCOTUS will overturn her once again.
At issue is SCOTUS determining those comms with Pence are “presumptively immune.” Chutkan said she didn’t read it that way. (That’s what it said.)
A ruling that Trump-Pence comms are protected under immunity would torpedo the entire indictment. Smith already had to cut 9 pages of original indictment bc Trump’s comms with DOJ were conclusively immune.
Further, those immunized conversations not only are barred from being cited in an indictment, the protected comms cannot be used in any stage of the investigation or prosecution.
hutkan, as she has said consistently since this case landed on her docket, emotionally emphasized that the presidential election will not affect her scheduling order, which she will file later today.
“I understand there is an election” soon, Chutkan said.
“It is not relevant. This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. It is nothing I will consider.”
But her own words and actions contradict that assertion. She attempted to rush the proceedings as soon as the SCOTUS mandate returned to her court–so much so that even Jack Smith had to ask to delay her status report and hearing deadline.
Further, she is contemplating taking what even she describes as an “irregular” procedure which is allow Jack Smith to file an “opening brief” to outline why he believes the existing indictment is not covered by SCOTUS immunity ruling.
Lauro strenuously objected to taking such an unusual step. Such a brief, Lauro argued, would be “enormously prejudicial” and noted Smith already filed a superseding indictment and it is the defense’s turn to respond.
Chutkan shot back that the defense would have plenty of time to respond to such a brief, which Smith’s prosecutor Tom Windom said could be submitted in about 3 weeks.
Chutkan, as I have reported before, was also in full performance mode.
She made snide comments to generate laughter in the DOJ friendly crowd. She crossed her arms, held up her hand, pointed, and smirked during her back and forth with Lauro.
She took a swipe at Judge Cannon’s ruling dismissing documents case by concluding Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. (I doubt she read that opinion either.)
But perhaps her most egregious comment–and one that demonstrates she is not concerned or understands the gravity of the matter before her–is when she blurted out “I am not talking about the presidency of the United States I am talking about a four-count indictment.”
WHAT?
This matter is ALL about the future of the presidency–what conduct is immune from criminal prosecution and what conduct is not.
This is not just some drug or J6 case.
That comment alone is disqualifying and a signal that like her colleagues on the DC bench, she DGAF about what SCOTUS determines.
