This latest indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former and potentially future President Donald Trump has been a rough one from the start, especially since the case was assigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan. She has ruled against Trump before and has been particularly harsh with January 6 defendants, while also having ties to President Barack Obama--who appointed her--and expressing support for Black Lives Matter. Now there's a protective order prosecutors have requested to limit what Trump can talk about after a TruthSocial post from last Friday declared "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" Trump's attorneys asked for a narrowed limit on the protective order. They also asked for a change in date for the protective order's hearing.
Trump DC case -
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 8, 2023
The Court ordered dates for the protective order hearing, to be held by Aug 11
Trump: Both my lawyers need to be present. We prefer Aug. 14 or 15.
Strategy behind this – to test whether Judge Chutkan rejects this reasonable request. pic.twitter.com/XfFjcnA0GT
The request is a reasonable one, considering that defendants ought to be able to have their attorneys make the hearing. That Judge Chutkan denied it is not surprising, though, in a move that Bonchie at our sister site of RedState referred to as one "that previews really rough seas ahead for the former president."
The hearing was to take place before August 11, which is the date that Chutkan set. Both of Trump's attorneys would have been available on August 14 or August 15, but one of them could be available on August 10, a date which prosecutors also said worked for them.
No surprise - Judge Chutkan denies the hearing date(s) requested by Trump's lawyers.
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 8, 2023
Unclear whether both of Trump's lawyers can make it.
August 11 hearing date on the protective order. (Take a guess on whose protective order she'll favor...) https://t.co/i0eq30GSmb pic.twitter.com/y3B8sfAW8M
Bonchie had some strong but appropriate words for Chutkan with regards to her denying the request:
I don’t know Judge Chutkan’s motives. What I do know is that she’s been one of the most vindictive judges to handle 2020 election-related cases, specifically those dealing with January 6th defendants. It seems more than reasonable to presume she has an ax to grind surrounding that entire period, and this ruling only provides further evidence of that.
Even if Judge Chutkan didn’t want to delay the hearing to the next week, you had both Trump’s team and the DOJ agreeing that they could make August 10th. To then double down on scheduling it on the 11th, when it’s possible that none of Trump’s primary counsel could attend, looks like pure spite. Moving dates around to accommodate the ability of lawyers to attend hearings is standard fare. There would be no reason to deny such a request when both sides had already agreed to compromise.
Recommended
Mentioning Chutkan as "vindictive," having "an ax to grind" and acting with what "looks like pure spite" make even further sense, considering the context provided by a report from ABC News. Emphasis is added:
On Monday night, the judge ordered both sides to file their available dates and times after attorneys spent the day filing competing motions over the proposed protective order special counsel Jack Smith asked the judge to impose on Trump to keep him from disclosing evidence obtained during Smith's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Not only did Chutkan decide against scheduling the hearing for when Trump's attorneys could both be there, she did so after asking them when they were available. Why bother asking, then?
If the Biden administration is looking to at least even just pretend that Trump is getting a fair trial, they are doing a pretty poor job. Legal analysts from across the political spectrum have raised concerns that Trump cannot get a fair trial in the District of Columbia, or with this judge, and it would seem that that's the narrative the DOJ is looking to promote.
This case is almost certainly going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Alan Dershowitz--one of those legal experts, who also is a Democrat--has pointed out, just as it's almost certain Chutkan will rule against Trump. Perhaps the Court will overturn a conviction against Trump, just as they did in 2016, unanimously, with charges that Smith brought against former Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2014.
Trump, who will not appear at the hearing, meanwhile addressed the indictment's free speech concerns at a rally in New Hampshire on Tuesday.
"This is all about election interference, but that isn't quite good enough," Trump told the crowd. "Crooked Joe now wants the thug prosecutor, this deranged guy to file a court order, taking away my First Amendment rights, so that I can't speak," he continued, as the crowd booed. "I will talk about it, I will. They're not taking away my First Amendment rights," Trump told the now cheering crowd. He described the case as "another radical leftist hoax," equating it with the Russian collusion narrative which was indeed proven to be a hoax.
A defiant Trump on the Jack Smith indictment:
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) August 8, 2023
"This is all about election interference... I will talk about it. They're not taking away my first amendment rights." pic.twitter.com/FuJXgzjOkh
Join the conversation as a VIP Member