Hearing in Jack Smith's J6 indictment against Donald Trump just ended.
It is a travesty cameras are now 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.
It is a travesty cameras are now 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.
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.
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.
Chutkan, 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.
This is PRECISELY the sort of shoddy, hasty work that landed Chutkan in trouble at SCOTUS.
"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.
This is PRECISELY the sort of shoddy, hasty work that landed Chutkan in trouble at SCOTUS.
"not" allowed typing too fast
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.
More later.
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.
More later.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
