The political bias of Judge Chutkin, who is presiding in the DC trial against Trump
Julie Kelly has long been one of the best reporters on J6. Now she takes up the subject of Tanya S. Chutkin, the judge presiding over Trump’s DC case.
An excerpt:
But even as she warns Trump about his “inflammatory” language, Chutkan has routinely issued politically charged rulings and made incendiary statements of her own while presiding over some 30 cases involving Trump supporters charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, melee at the U.S. Capitol. …
These include her public assertions that the 2020 election was beyond reproach, that the Jan. 6 protests were orchestrated by Trump, and that the former president is guilty of crimes. She has described Jan. 6 as a “mob attack” on “the very foundation of our democracy” and branded the issue at the heart of the case she is hearing – Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen – a conspiracy theory.
Although judges often make comments from the bench, Chutkan’s strident language raises questions about her impartiality in handling the case against the presumptive GOP nominee for president in 2024.
I suppose you could say it “raises questions.” But I think it actually answers them. This is an exceptionally biased judge, and she has been given a lot of power to interfere with the 2024 election.
And there’s very little chance of changing that, because there is still a presumption in favor of judges’ impartiality:
GOP Rep. Matthew Gaetz of Florida recently filed a resolution to condemn and censure Chutkan for exhibiting “open bias and partisanship in the conduct of her official duties as a judge.”
But if the aim among Trump loyalists is to get a new judge assigned to the case, it’s a steep legal hurdle. Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University, said that typically a judge can be recused for bias or the appearance of bias “only when the purported bias comes from a source outside the judge’s work as a judge.” He continued, “Almost never will a judge be recused for opinions she forms as a judge – in hearing cases and motions. Judges are expected to form opinions based on these?’intrajudicial’ sources. It’s what judges do.
Judge Churkin was appointed by Obama in 2013. No surprise there. He knew exactly what he was doing in making sure DC would be a fertile venue for bringing political federal cases against the enemies of the left.
NOTE: Much much more at the link.
A deeply biased judge combined with an almost certainly deeply biased DC jury will make this whole affair seem a complete farce in the eyes of a vast number of Americans, perhaps even a majority. If the powers-that-be were attempting to actually present this as any kind of legitimate exercise of justice, this judge would have to recuse herself and there would have to be a change of venue. Of course given the wispiness of this particular “case” against Trump, it’s fairly likely that any truly legitimate legal process would necessarily result in a complete dismisal. We now live in a country with a sitting president who using his department of justices to prosectute his chief political opponent in an upcomming election for completely manufactured “crimes”.
…which same DOJ is red-lining in its vile attempts to defend the crook in the WH, the crook’s family of crooks, and all the other crooks in the crook-in-the-WH’s crooked administration.
File under: By hook or by crook.
+ Bonus (Yaaawwwwn….)
“Obama, Clinton and Biden ALL used secret, fake-name email accounts to hide their actions”—
https://nypost.com/2023/09/06/obama-clinton-and-biden-all-used-secret-fake-name-email-accounts-to-hide-their-actions/
Dey’re allowed to, seeee; dey’re Democrats.
“These include her public assertions that the 2020 election was beyond reproach, that the Jan. 6 protests were orchestrated by Trump, and that the former president is guilty of crimes. She has described Jan. 6 as a “mob attack” on “the very foundation of our democracy” and branded the issue at the heart of the case she is hearing – Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen – a conspiracy theory.”
I’m SURE she’ll be completely unbiased.
Related:
Chris Licht’s doomed-from-the-start attempt to make CNN a more reliable, more responsible, more honest media entity is, apparently, too difficult a concept for hot-shot propagandist Anderson Cooper to comprehend.
(Well, understandably, I guess…)
“CNN’s Anderson Cooper slams ex-boss Chris Licht: ‘Not sure what the point of it all was’”—
https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/cnns-anderson-cooper-slams-ex-boss-chris-licht/
It’s a total Kangaroo Court set up, hook line and sinker.
Agree Julie Kelly in the top reporter on Jan6.
I wouldn’t believe anything the judge would say, she is pushing propaganda to her liking.
The judge and all the jurors will be seen as heroic among their friends and acquaintances.
Impartial jurors will be justifiably concerned for their safety and livelihood if they vote for innocence.
UNLESS, the mostly black jury has some people who have been, or have friends who have been, screwed by law enforcement and the courts.
Plenty of low income men and women forced to take the plea bargain after having a bunch of fightening BS charges added to their case.
It will be a Democrat-stacked bunch of black Washingtonians who will try a white billionaire ex-president. The prospects for a fair trial are zero. Thejudge is an Obama flack. Only appeals to higher courts past the DC-based Court of Appeals will serve justice, and that means the Supremes. Wait until they rule for the leftist yelling of protest.
Watch now for the false flags as campaign and trial season start to overlap. As we all well know, this is no coincidence.
I’m confused (more so than usual), it’s not enough that she made public statements that Trump is guilty? Were her statements from the Bench? How is this American justice when the judge hearing your case has pronounced you guilty before the trial starts?
Weird things do happen in courtrooms, but usually in out of the way places over minor offenses. My lawyer friend told me a story about a classmate of his who was defending a DUI client when the prosecutor just didn’t show up. The judge said “That’s alright I’ll prosecute the case “
she has made statements on the bench outside the bank et al, she’s more like vyshinsky or that iranian persecutor, khalkali (sic)
You know when you are dealing with a Communist when they keep referring to our form of government as a Democracy when it was clearly designed as a Republic. Representational voting does not turn a Republic into a Democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
JFM:
I don’t think she flat-out said Trump is guilty. She insinuated it in various ways, however.
Judge Churkin was confirmed to the Federal bench with a 95-0 yes vote. So don’t call her an Obama judge; call her a RINO judge.
yes they are an easy mark, well it would have been racist if you didn’t vote for her, or something,
fair is fair,
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1699607285624943065
Bucky has it right. 95-0????? The Senate must be filled in future by hardline defenders of the American Republic, by Rand Paul equals. If that does not occur, we shall simply end up being ruled by Democrats in the USSA, the United Socialist States of America.
Judge Chutkin was confirmed to the Federal bench with a 95-0 yes vote.
How many were virtue-signaling and/or afraid to vote No because she is black?
Reference virtue signaling:
Do we really agree with Senator Tim Scott, or not, when he exclaims “America is not a racist country” ??
Certainly we were, and we may have a residual element still trying to be influential among us, but the civil rights and selected follow on legislation achieved core equal opportunity at least by 2007, if not before. Obama, Holder, et al. have degraded that national and social accomplishment for their own ends since then.
What is the reality? I don’t trust the liberal “researchers” to be objective. Are there even 17, let alone 1700 or 17,000 skinhead type white supremacists left in America, as either a loose or coordinated coalition of active race promoters? They have been surprisingly ineffectual if that is the case. Of course, if the excesses of the racialist industry participants have their way, there will end up being a counter opinion gaining ground, whether justified or not.
Another voice calling for rationality and reality on this:
Racism in America Today: A Real or Manufactured Problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltsoA1uybSU
There is also a transcript of this video available if you prefer, findable at the link.