Pumpkin spice lattes are back, and so is Donald Trump – in court, at least. The former president returns to the courtroom this week, both federal and state, in New York and DC for criminal and civil actions. On Thursday, September 5, Trump’s attorneys argued with Biden’s legal attack dog, Jack Smith, on the fresh indictment aimed at criminalizing the former president’s behavior on January 6. Mr. Trump was not in the nation’s capital, instead favoring New York to challenge his 34 felony convictions in the Stormy Daniels affair on multiple fronts and to appeal his sexual assault civil case. Meanwhile, on Thursday, Hunter Biden also pleaded guilty to the nine-count indictment against him on criminal tax charges, including three felonies.
Tanya Chutkan is the Obama appointee to the federal district court in Washington, DC, where Mr. Trump is once again being tried for J6 crimes. Undaunted by defeat at the Supreme Court, Jack Smith is taking another bite at the apple. Smith and his bosses, Attorney General Garland and President Joe Biden, have all insisted this is not political. Instead, they protest their novel application of criminal laws against former president Trump, which is merely the expression of an obligation to apply the facts to the law. However, the decision to prosecute, seek a trial during the presidential elections, and re-file after a loss at the Supreme Court were all undertaken by political appointees of Trump’s political opposition.
Is there an election going on?
Progressives demanded Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from cases his wife expressed an opinion on. Still, somehow, prosecution motives against their very rivals for power and position are beyond reproach. Judge Chutkan, it appears, is drinking from the same cup. She said at Thursday’s hearing:
“The subtext of your argument here about these sensitive times and the desire not to have any evidentiary briefing before this year — it strikes me that what you’re trying to do is affect the presentation of this case so as not to impinge on an election.”
She continued: “The electoral process and the timing of the election … is not relevant here,” and “This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule.” However, Chutkan indicated she would not schedule a trial before election day.
The hearing was a slugfest over which issues need to be decided before a trial starts, including whether statements made by Trump to Vice President Mike Pence are admissible as evidence against him. According to Courthouse News Service, reporting from the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, Trump’s lead defense attorney, John Lauro, “cited… Chief Justice John Roberts, who suggested those communications strike at the core of a president’s duties, and basing charges on such evidence could interfere with and chill a future president’s actions,” declaring, “the entire indictment craters.”
October Surprise for Trump or Smith?
Her honor ruled that the prosecution has the first production demand, a filing laying out evidence against Trump and why that evidence is admissible under the new standard. Trump’s team sees it as an opportunity for the prosecution to drive the headlines against him just a few precious weeks before the election. Smith’s prosecution brief is due September 26. A reply by Trump is required by October 17, and a final rebuttal from the Biden DOJ is required by October 26.
Mr. Trump reacted on Thursday evening with a torrent of posts on social media quoting others, especially those at the intersection of law and politics. One sample is from Alan Dershowitz, leader of the criminal defense bar:
“Alan Dershowitz: ‘I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states. But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse.’”
In another courtroom today, Friday, September 6, Trump will attend an appeal hearing to overturn a multi-million-dollar civil court judgment E. Jean Carroll won against him. Mr. Trump is arguing that Lewis Kaplan, the New York state trial court judge, ruled in such a flawed and prejudicial manner that he irredeemably prejudiced the jury against the defendant.
