NEW: Tanya Chutkan did not come to play—and even as her case was stayed, she was getting ready. Case in point? Her 16-page decision issued tonight rejecting Trump’s motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution. 1/
From its first substantive paragraph, the opinion stings, asserting Trump’s “alternative narrative” that the government charged him for “publicly disputing the election outcome” is an “improper reframing” of the indictment belied by its express words. 2/ 
After establishing the legal elements of each claim, Chutkan dismantles Trump’s argument. He’s not similarly situated to others who have not been prosecuted, she concludes, because in prior election disputes, no one faced allegations that they “engaged in criminal conduct to obstruct the electoral process.” 3/
Chutkan then turns to Trump’s purported proof of the government’s discriminatory intent, finding he misinterpreted and/or overread articles in the @nytimes & @WashPost that don’t prove DOJ prosecutors or President Biden were out to get Trump, as he often recites. 4/
@nytimes @WashPost She similarly concludes that a statement Biden made in November 2022 signaled nothing but his intent to “vigorously campaign” against Trump should he declare his candidacy—and that the coexistence of his campaign with the case itself is not itself proof of any improper motive. 5/
@nytimes @WashPost Over the next several pages, Chutkan further explains why Trump cannot establish the even more demanding test for vindictive prosecution, which requires proof that the government actually or likely punished the defendant for asserting his legal rights. 6/
@nytimes @WashPost She determines there’s no evidence the government pursued the case because Trump pleaded not guilty to the “unrelated” Mar-a-Lago classified documents case & notes the timing and sequence of events, on which Trump relies, cannot, without more, prove vindictiveness. 7/
@nytimes @WashPost And finally, she denies his request for an evidentiary hearing to show the government is lying about its investigation. But to get more factfinding, Trump would have had to show her at least “some evidence tending to show” selective prosecution. 8/
@nytimes @WashPost Instead, she concludes, he offered her “no meaningful evidence” nor any persuasive explanation as to how further factfinding would help him establish the necessary elements of a selective prosecution claim. 9/
@nytimes @WashPost So now, the parties move toward their Aug. 9 deadline for a joint status report with both of Trump’s remaining motions to dismiss resolved within a day of the case resuming. FIN.
@nytimes @WashPost p.s. The opinion is here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
