Trump’s attorneys say Judge Tanya Chutkan has made statements that “create a perception of prejudgment.”
“This was nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government, the legally, lawfully, peacefully elected government, by individuals who were mad that their guy lost,” Chutkan said during one October 2022 hearing, later adding, “it’s blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” (my emphasis)
“The people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged,” Chutkan said during Palmer’s December 2021 sentencing hearing.
Those are simple statements of fact.
Trump’s attorneys have indicated they may seek removal to federal court in another of his cases, in which he’s charged alongside 18 co-defendants in Fulton County, Georgia, for allegedly orchestrating a “criminal enterprise” to thwart the 2020 election results in battleground state.
Judge Jones’ ruling denying Meadows’ motion to remove makes it absolutely clear that none of these Georgia defendants meet the “low bar” for federal protection from State prosecution for performing their federal duties. Why? Because interfering in a State election is not a federal duty.
So far as I can tell, the quoted statements were made in the context of trying or sentencing people who physically entered the Capitol on Jan 6, and/or acted with overt violence towards law enforcement. The first quote doesn’t reference a defendant, I will need to dig on that one.
The second, however, was during sentencing for one Robert Palmer, “who was sentenced to more than five years in prison for using a wooden plank and a fire extinguisher to attack police.”
That second quote recognizes that Palmer, who was already convicted, did not act solely because of his own will, nor did he act as part of a “headless” mob. He, and all the rest of the people who marched on and then used violence to invade the Capitol building didn’t just wake up the morning of Jan 6 and decide that that was going to be their outing for the day.
This violent insurrection was fomented by others. That is simply undeniable. And, at the December 2021 date the Chutkan’s statement was made, it was true that “The people who exhorted [Palmer] and encouraged [him] and rallied [him] to go and take action and to fight have not been charged.”
The subtext to that statement is that “the people who exhorted” should be charged. Not convicted, not lynched, not prejudged - charged, taken to court, before a jury of their peers, and weighed on the scales of justice.
The first quote comes from the October 2022 sentencing of Chistine Priola. Priola received a 15 month sentence. She pled guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding, having spent thirty minutes inside the Capitol building.
A more complete quote from that hearing is:
“I see the videotapes. I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats that they were wearing, and the garb,” Chutkan said. “And the people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty to one man, not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this county and not to the principles of democracy. It’s blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
Chutkan is again recognizing the facts of the matter. The people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were there for Trump - whether he directed their specific actions or not (if you watch him speaking at the Ellipse, you can make your own judgment about that). Trump was President of the United States on that day. His complete failure for several hours to take any action whatsoever, as President, to stop the insurrectionists who were acting for him stands in stark and dire contrast to his, in October 2022, having seen no consequence for that inaction. This is with disregard to whether you think he’s responsible for actively directing people to insurrection before it began.
Those are simple statements of fact.
My previous comment stands.
Well, to Trump any black woman speaking facts out loud is a problem.
Defense counsel should probably remember that after a certain number of improper actions, they’ll be defending their status to stand before the bar as well as defending Trump.
Look, we’ve never seen someone try to get out of trial so much they get a default judgement in two different states, causing them a judgement of ~1.5 billion dollars. They certainly didn’t have a lawyer who thinks dropping his pants and saying the nword is a funny standuo bit, and no one has told him Grape Job Norm.
Said lawyer also didn’t decide to defend Proud Boys and lose said case as well. So not following the rules and doing whatever you think is established precedence that works, imo.
It’s not like she accepted a vacation on a private yacht or hunting lodge.
Your honor, we object to factual statements.
I read that as perception of pigmentation and was like yup.
