During Thursday’s federal election subversion case hearing against Donald Trump, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan delivered a scathing response after Trump’s lawyer attempted to use the election to delay proceedings in the 2020 election subversion case. This was the first hearing before Chutkan since the Supreme Court granted Trump some immunity, and it became clear that she is focused on moving the case forward despite election-related arguments.
The primary dispute between Trump’s legal team and the court centered on the process for addressing immunity issues. Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, raised concerns about how the case’s public record might affect the election. However, Judge Chutkan firmly rejected this notion.
“This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule,” Chutkan said
“We are talking about the presidency of the United States,” Lauro replied.
Don't Miss
“I am not talking about the presidency. I am talking about a four-count indictment,” Chutkan declared and implied that any delay tactics linked to election timing were not acceptable.
Lauro argued that the outcome of the case could have broader implications beyond the current charges, but Chutkan dismissed the argument as an attempt to influence the case’s presentation to avoid impacting the election. Her comments underscored her intent to proceed with the case regardless of election dynamics.
At the end of the hearing, Chutkan acknowledged the challenges in setting a trial date given the potential for appeals. She described it as “an exercise in futility” to set a trial date at this point. Both Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors concurred that it was premature to set a date, but Chutkan indicated she would soon issue an order to address the immunity issue and move the case forward.
The hearing also addressed the suggestion from Trump’s attorneys that the case should be dismissed if the Pence-related allegations were deemed immune, a claim Chutkan swiftly shot down and questioned its validity, indicating that she did not view it as a standalone issue that could resolve the entire case.
Additionally, Chutkan expressed skepticism towards arguments that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was illegal, as suggested by a recent ruling from Judge Aileen Cannon in another case, saying it was not particularly “persuasive.”
She noted that existing DC Circuit precedent upholds the constitutionality of special counsels and suggested that Trump’s legal team would need to provide substantial reasoning if they wish to challenge this in their forthcoming motions.
Judge Chutkan’s responses highlighted her determination to proceed with the case without succumbing to election-related delays or distractions.
