Staff Reports
Former judge Andrew Napolitano did not hold back when criticizing Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump’s trial in DC. Napolitano expressed his lack of surprise that Chutkan decided to begin the trial on the day before Super Tuesday, saying she is “blind to the political realities” of the trial date. He also had issues with her legal reasoning. Napolitano pointed out that the federal government will be giving over one million pages of documents to Trump’s lawyers, which is an enormous amount for them to read and analyze before the trial begins. Despite Trump’s lawyers pleading for more time, Chutkan refused their request, meaning they will need to hire more lawyers just to manage the workload. Napolitano believes that trials should be decided on the merits, not the convenience of the court or its calendar. He also acknowledged the political nature of the Department of Justice’s indictment against Trump.
Not only does Napolitano criticize Judge Chutkan, but constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes also finds fault with her decision. He points out that Chutkan previously stated it would take over a year to bring a simple misdemeanor case to trial, yet she has now set Trump’s case, with over 12 million documents, for an earlier trial date. This inconsistency raises doubt about the integrity of her decision. Mike Davis further adds to the skepticism, highlighting Chutkan’s contradictory statements about treating Trump the same as any other defendant while also acknowledging his wealth as a reason for treating him differently. These actions may contribute to potential appeals in the future.
The same Judge that said it would take more than a year to bring a simple misdemeanor J6 case to trial also now set #Trump case with 12 million+ documents to an early trial date almost twice as quickly.
— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) August 28, 2023
Furthermore, Chutkan made a laughable statement suggesting that Trump should have prepared his defense a year before he was even indicted. Julie Kelly, a reporter, finds this idea preposterous, as post-indictment discovery materials are needed for the defense to begin preparing their legal defenses. This implies that Chutkan may have a hostile intent to rig the trial against Trump and secure a conviction, regardless of any appealable issues that may arise. In other words, the trial seems to have a political purpose rather than a fair pursuit of justice.
These criticisms paint a picture of a biased judge who may not be considering the implications of her decisions. Napolitano, Barnes, Davis, and Kelly all raise valid points that question the fairness of Chutkan’s handling of Trump’s trial. It is essential to ensure that the trial remains unbiased and free from political motivations in order to protect the integrity of the justice system.
