On Oct. 17, she issued an order and opinion arguing that delaying its release would be a form of election interference.

“If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute—or appear to be—election interference,” she said in her five-page order.

“The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests.”

On Oct. 10, Chutkan had authorized the release of the evidence—the appendix to Smith’s immunity motion—in an order on Oct. 10 but delayed its effects for seven days to give Trump an opportunity to evaluate his next steps. In her recent order, she added that the court would issue an order on the following day directing the release of the redacted appendix.

Trump’s attorneys had requested an extension on the delay Judge Chutkan imposed, suggesting instead in an Oct. 17 motion that she should concurrently release both Smith’s appendix and one from Trump’s team.

Trump’s attorneys said that “if the appendices are released simultaneously, at least some press outlets will attempt to report both sides of this case, reducing (although, again, not eliminating) the potential for irreversible prejudice.”

“Similarly, the risk to witnesses will be somewhat reduced, as the public will have a more balanced picture of their testimony and how it connects to this case,” the filing to the judge read.

Chutkan’s motion also said Trump’s team’s justification for delaying the release to help the public gain a better understanding of the issue is “oxymoronic.”

“Setting aside the oxymoronic proposition that the public’s understanding of this case will be enhanced by withholding information about it, any public debate about the issues in this case has no bearing on the court’s resolution of those issues,” she said.

The judge also pushed back on his attorneys’ concerns about tainting the jury pool, saying instead that concerns like that could be addressed in the jury selection process.

Discovery Requests

The filings represented an ongoing back and forth between Judge Chutkan and Trump over the release of evidence—both to Trump and the public.

Chutkan issued an order on Oct. 16 rejecting most of Trump’s requests to compel discovery from Smith’s team. Out of the 14 categories of evidence he requested, Judge Chutkan only granted him three particular sets of information.

To compel discovery means to submit a request to gain access to relevant evidence, including documents or information, held by the other party before a trial begins.

Her 50-page order accused Trump’s legal team of using speculative reasoning to justify the discovery of various items. It also repeatedly argued that Trump had failed to show their relevance to his state of mind during the acts alleged in Smith’s indictment.

“Defendant has only carried his burden with respect to a small portion of the information he seeks. For most of it, he has proffered only speculation that a search will yield material, noncumulative information,” Chutkan said.

The judge added that while Trump “purports to seek much of this information to show his state of mind at the time of his indicted conduct … he does not indicate that he was aware of the requested information such that it could have affected his state of mind.”

Among the requests she denied were those for information that undercut a statement in which the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency described the 2020 election as the most secure in American history. Another included four types of records related to the Intelligence Community’s (IC) assessment of the 2020 election, which outlined its conclusions about foreign actors’ attempts to influence the election.

The discovery she granted included information the director of national intelligence (DNI) said he reviewed prior to his interview with the special counsel’s office. Chutkan noted how Smith’s original indictment alleged that the DNI “disabused [Trump] of the notion that the Intelligence Community’s findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.”

She also acquiesced to Trump’s demand for discovery of “evidence relating to the unauthorized retention of classified documents by Vice President Mike Pence,” which she said could be material for impeaching the former vice president as a witness.

Other evidence included information about Trump’s meeting with Gen. Mark Milley and Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller just days before Jan. 6, 2021. More specifically, Trump sought records of information about security measures that were conveyed to him.

Trump’s motion to compel was filed in November of last year and argued for releasing various forms of evidence in order to, among other things, impeach prosecution witnesses and reveal purported political bias among officials in law enforcement and the intelligence community.

“The [Special Counsel’s] Office cannot rely on selected guidance and judgments by officials it favors from the Intelligence Community and law enforcement while ignoring evidence of political bias in those officials’ decision-making as well as cyberattacks and other interference, both actual and attempted, that targeted critical infrastructure and election facilities before, during, and after the 2020 election,” his attorneys said.

Trump has been given until Oct. 30 to file any additional motions to compel discovery related to the presidential immunity issue. Judge Chutkan also granted discovery requests related to the prosecution team and gave Smith until Oct. 26 to provide those materials to Trump.

His attorneys urged Judge Tanya Chutkan, who set a schedule allowing prosecutors to file the first brief on presidential immunity Sept. 26, to reconsider her decision. Without addressing ongoing evidence issues, Smith’s filing would “amount to an improper motion for summary judgment in the court of public opinion” ahead of the election, they argued.

Trump’s attorneys noted there are “ongoing discovery violations in this case that implicate Presidential immunity and other strong defenses, including the Office’s failure to produce exculpatory evidence concerning the flaws with this prosecution and the Office’s false allegations.” They said prosecutors conducted their evidence review at a time when they “wholly denied the existence of Presidential immunity,” […]

— Read More: thelibertydaily.com

Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed Friday with special counsel Jack Smith’s request for a postponement in Trump’s election interference case by delaying a scheduled hearing from Aug. 16 to Sept. 5. Brennan, who previously represented Trump, said on “CNN News Central” that this latest delay makes it even more improbable that the trial could start before the election, because of how quickly it is approaching.

“When you’re the defendant, it certainly is in your favor to have delay. I mean, there’s the old adage, justice delayed is justice denied, but not necessarily when you’re a defendant,” Brennan said. “And I suspect that there may be some dissension between the office of special counsel and main justice on how to proceed because that sweeping ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has a lot of daylight in it. There’s a lot of subjective interpretation for the three tiers of immunity laid out by the Supreme Court.”

WATCH:

Attorney Tells CNN It's 'Virtually Impossible' Trump Will Face DC Trial Before Election pic.twitter.com/vX5JsG7U26

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 9, 2024

Prosecutors wrote in a Thursday night filing that the government is still evaluating the impact of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling and requested the timeline to be delayed several weeks. Chutkan originally rejected Trump’s motion to toss the case based on presidential immunity on Dec. 1, with his appeal causing a multi-month postponement in the case and the cancellation of the initially slated March trial date.

CNN correspondent Jessica Dean then asked Brennan if he thinks “it’s possible” the case could proceed “before the November election.”

“Everything’s possible, but it’s extremely unlikely, virtually impossible, I would say, because we’re now in the midst of the election season,” he said. “It’s August 9th. I think the election is in early November, maybe the fifth. I just don’t see how, with the delay that’s just occurred, and that’s just to really talk about theories on how to proceed, I don’t see how it could be brought to trial … just fighting the calendar pages, in any realistic way before November 5th.”

Trump faces four felony counts related to alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance said on Monday there is “absolutely no chance” of the trial taking place before the November election, citing the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.

“The way the Supreme Court structured this decision, Judge Chutkan will make her rulings and if she permits any of the charges to go forward, any of the allegations in the indictment to remain in place, indicates that the government can use any of this evidence, despite Trump’s claims that it’s all now cloaked in presidential immunity, there will be a round two appeal,” she said. “Because the way immunity works, and the Supreme Court makes this clear, is the whole point of having immunity is you shouldn’t have to stand trial for charges that you have immunity from.

“So Trump will inevitably take objection to anything that she permits to move forward … This case will not happen quickly,” she added.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Trump asked in October to issue subpoenas to retrieve “certain missing records and uncover information about their disposition.” District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, wrote in a seven-page order that Trump “fails to meet his burden” in justifying his need for the records, likening his request to a “fishing expedition.”

“Defendant does not state with any specificity the information that he seeks in those records, repeating only that it is important and related to the events and people associated with the Select Committee’s work and therefore the January 6, 2021 attack,” Chutkan wrote. “The broad scope of the records that Defendant seeks, and his vague description of their potential relevance, resemble less ‘a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence’ than they do ‘a general ‘fishing expedition.””
Trump sought to subpoena the Archivist of the United States, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Committee on House Administration, Special Counsel to the President Richard Sauber, Department of Homeland Security general counsel Jonathan Meyer, Republican Georgia Rep. Barry Loudermilk and Democratic Mississippi Rep. Bernie Thompson.

Loudermilk claimed that some records from the Committee “were not archived” as required in a June 26 letter. Thompson, the former Jan. 6 Select Committee chair, later disputed that claim.

The trial in Trump’s 2020 election case is scheduled for March 4, 2024.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Both of these traits were on display in his most recent filing that wants Trump silenced by not allowing the trial to be televised. In question is the use of the phrase “political witch hunt” or anything like it.

According to his filing:

The defendant peppers his response with various references to “fairness,” but what he actually seeks is to defy a uniform and longstanding broadcast prohibition that was crafted precisely with fair and orderly trial proceedings in mind. He desires instead to create a carnival atmosphere from which he hopes to profit from distracting, like many fraud defendants try to do, from the charges against him. This scenario is not hypothetical. As the Court has already observed in proceedings in the defendant’s criminal trial, the defendant and his counsel will, if permitted, design their in-court statements instead to wage a public relations campaign. And in defendant’s New York state civil fraud trial, the defendant recently used his testimony to condemn the case as a “political witch hunt,” prompting the judge to admonish that “(t)his is not a political rally…” The Court should not grant the application in plain contravention of Rule 53 and further motivate the defendant and his counsel to make improper statements inside the courtroom to provoke a public reaction outside of it.

As Julie Kelly noted:

Thin-skinned Jack Smith asked Chutkan to ban Trump from calling him names on Truth Social. (She obliged.) Now he’s afraid Trump will condemn Smith’s prosecution as a “political witch hunt” during any televised trial. Defund Jack Smith.

Thin-skinned Jack Smith asked Chutkan to ban Trump from calling him names on Truth Social. (She obliged.)

Now he's afraid Trump will condemn Smith's prosecution as a "political witch hunt" during any televised trial.

Defund Jack Smith. pic.twitter.com/unZp8mAnWc

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) November 13, 2023

The biggest problem with Smith’s claims is that this really is a political witch hunt. He knows it. Most Americans know it. The judge definitely knows it. But that’s the whole point. Smith and Chutkan DO want to oppress Trump to keep him from being President of the United States again and they’re willing to play dirty to get it done.

I would be very surprised if Chutkan doesn’t deny the motion to allow the public to watch this trial. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, but the people in charge of this trial know they’re the infection.

Sound off about this story on The Liberty Daily Substack.

He took to Truth Social to declare he’s calling for recusal and a venue shift.

There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge “assigned” to the ridiculous freedom of speech/fair elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she! We will be immediately asking for recusal of this judge on very powerful grounds, and likewise for venue change, out if D.C.

Chances of either happening are slim. This is going to take the Supreme Court to fix despite the unambiguous political nature of the charges.

The judge in the Trump J6 case – an Obama appointee and donor – worked at the same law firm as Hunter Biden.

This is the level of contempt they have for the Constitution, the rule of law – and YOU. pic.twitter.com/ZyqZ3YNTA8

— Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) August 2, 2023

New on @MSNBC: The Trump case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.

Chutkan, an Obama appointee, is the only federal judge in Washington, D.C. who has sentenced Jan. 6 defendants to sentences longer than the government had requested.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) August 1, 2023

DC Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan was appointed by Barack Obama. She has been pushing the harshest possible sentences for every January 6 political prisoner that has hit her court room. And to add insult to injury, she worked at the same law firm as Hunter Biden. You can’t make this stuff up.

According to Mark Pellin at Headline USA:

The judge tapped to oversee the J6 prosecution being brought by the Biden Justice Department against Donald Trump has deep ties to the Democrat Party and previously worked at the same law firm with Hunter Biden.

The Obama-appointed federal judge also has expressed a strong dislike of Trump and from the bench has brutalized J6 protesters, calling them “insurrectionists” and meting out exceedingly harsh sentences.

DC federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, who purportedly was randomly selected for the J6 case, worked at the Democrat-collaborative law firm Boies Schiller Flexner for 12 years before she was confirmed in 2014 as a federal judge, according to replies Chutkan provided to a Senate “questionnaire for judicial nominees” reviewed by Headline USA. Chutkan’s tenure at BSF overlapped Hunter Biden’s stint at the same firm, where he was listed as counsel from 2009 to 2014, according to OpenSecrets.

As I’ve noted before, this entire debacle is designed to distract us from news of undeniable corruption from the Biden Crime Family. They timed this indictment perfectly to get patriots and conservative news outlets talking about the Trump indictment instead of the Biden crimes. Had they dropped it before Devon Archer’s testimony on Monday, it would have been overshadowed. If they dropped it Monday as bombshells from Archers testimony were being revealed, the news would have shared space in the conservative news echo chamber.

By dropping this indictment the day after Archer’s appearance in Congress, the Deep State was able to essentially cauterize the news cycle wounds. We should be spreading the truth about the Bidens to normies right now. Instead, we’re busy talking about the manufactured indictment. And yes, I’m guilty of hypocrisy for doing the same. In fact, I am worse than most journalists because I recognize this ploy by the Deep State and I’m still falling into the trap of discussing the indictment.

The Department of Injustice is openly and ferociously laughing at us. As Monica Crowley noted, “This is the level of contempt they have for the Constitution, the rule of law – and YOU.”

Sound off about this story on my Substack.