Trump’s DC Election Interference Case Update
For the first time since last December, Trump’s DC election interference case is back in District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s courtroom. As usual, special prosecutor Jack Smith was ready to move the proceedings along — while Trump’s legal team was doing everything they could to delay the process. Unfortunately for the defense’s “let’s wait“ philosophy, Chutkan is no Judge Aileen Cannon, Trump’s Florida judicial poodle.
Trial Timeline
No one should expect this affair to get to an actual trial any time soon. That will most likely start sometime in 2025. But only if the Supreme Court permits justice to be done — and Kamala Harris wins the election. However, wherever Chutkan has discretion she seems disposed to move the case along with relative haste.
Supreme Court’s Role
The most important matter she has to resolve is how the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision impacts which crimes Trump can be charged with and what evidence can be introduced at trial. In empaneling a new grand jury to consider and return a superseding indictment, Jack Smith has done his part by removing such things as Trump’s conversations with the DOJ from the equation. Still in the indictment are other matters like Trump’s interference with the states’ election processes, which is in no way part of his official duties (although this Supreme Court is capable of making anything up).
Streamlining the Appeals Process
On Thursday, Smith’s team asked for all matters related to immunity to be considered in toto instead of piecemeal. This would streamline the inevitable appeals process. Lead prosecutor, Thomas Windom, put it thus:
“We think all immunity decisions should be handled at one time, simultaneously. We know there is going to be interlocutory appeal. We just want to limit it to one.”
Trump’s lawyers predictably objected by claiming that approach was unfairly fast. Such a move they argued would be “fundamentally unfair” and at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. Or as Trump’s lead attorney, John Lauro, said:
“Allowing the government to selectively portray its case is contrary to the rules of criminal procedure. It shows fundamental unfairness” and permits a “process never before seen in district court. It’s the kind of process the Supreme Court said should never take place.”
Judge Chutkan’s Response
Chutkan was having none of their nonsense. She swatted away Lauro’s histrionics and fired back that Trump seemed more focused on preventing meaningful developments in the case before the Nov. 5 election. In her words:
“It strikes me that what you’re trying to do is affect the presentation of evidence in this case in a way so as not to impinge on the election of the president. This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule.”
Defense’s Complaints
Lauro also complained that Smith’s superseding indictment was “fatally flawed” because the grand jury had heard evidence he will argue should have been off limits — including his conversations with Vice President Mike Pence.
Note: Smith has emphasized that Trump had tried to strong-arm Pence in his role as president of the Senate, rather than as Trump’s #2 in order to persuade Chutkan, and subsequent appeals courts, that those conversations are admissible.
Moving Forward
Chutkan seemed unimpressed by Lauro’s argument. And she appeared amenable to Windom’s proposal that the government could be ready to move forward with its summation of Trump’s prosecutable conduct in as little as three weeks. She dealt with more defense objections to the tight schedule to present complex issues by observing:
“We can all walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Constitutional Challenges
Trump’s team also tried to argue that the Special Prosecutor was an unconstitutional appointment — a position Justice Clarence Thomas had suggested (no other Justice concurring) in his take on the immunity decision. Why not? Cannon had been happy to dismiss Trump’s stolen documents case on that unfounded, made from whole cloth, interpretation of the Constitution.
Alas for their aspirations, Trump’s lawyers discovered, once again, that Chutkan believes in following the law. She pointed out that Trump had failed to file that particular challenge last year in a timely way — not the first time his lawyers had proved they were ignorant of criminal procedure. She also noted that the DC Court of Appeals (her bosses) had previously sided with the government. And she smacked down Cannon by saying she did not find Aileen’s opinion “particularly persuasive.” Which is judge-speak for “She’s a fecking eejit.”
Uncertain Future
No one can say what will happen to this case. It is impossible to predict what matters the DC Appeals Court or the Supreme Court will agree to hear. Or how long they will take to hear it. Or what their decisions will be. But at least at the trial court level, the American people can be assured that they have a Judge willing to put her foot on the gas.
FAQs About Judge Chutkan’s Ruling on Trump’s Lawyers
Here are the top 10 FAQs related to the recent ruling by Judge Chutkan on Trump’s lawyers.
- Q: Who is Judge Chutkan?
A: Judge Chutkan is a federal judge who presided over the case involving former President Donald Trump. - Q: What did Judge Chutkan rule about Trump’s lawyers?
A: Judge Chutkan criticized Trump’s lawyers for attempting to delay the proceedings and rebuked Aileen Cannon, another judge involved in the case. - Q: Why did Judge Chutkan criticize Trump’s lawyers?
A: Judge Chutkan criticized Trump’s lawyers for their attempts to delay the case, which she deemed as unnecessary and obstructive. - Q: What was the context of the ruling?
A: The ruling was part of an ongoing legal battle involving former President Donald Trump and his associates. - Q: Who is Aileen Cannon?
A: Aileen Cannon is another judge who has been involved in the same legal case as Judge Chutkan and was also criticized by Judge Chutkan in her ruling. - Q: What did Judge Chutkan say about Aileen Cannon?
A: Judge Chutkan rebuked Aileen Cannon for her handling of the case, indicating dissatisfaction with her decisions. - Q: How significant is this ruling in the broader context of Trump’s legal issues?
A: The ruling is significant as it reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny of Trump’s legal team and their tactics in various cases. - Q: What are the implications for Trump’s lawyers following this ruling?
A: The implications include potential increased scrutiny and possibly more stringent oversight from judges in future cases involving Trump’s legal team. - Q: Can Trump appeal this ruling?
A: While Trump’s lawyers can appeal, the ruling reflects judicial disapproval and may influence future decisions in related cases. - Q: How has public opinion reacted to this ruling?
A: Public opinion varies widely, with some supporting judicial oversight and others criticizing what they see as political bias in the judiciary.
