Judge Chutkan Hands Donald Trump New Legal Setback

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Donald Trump's federal election interference case, denied the former president's motion to dismiss all the charges in his case on the grounds of presidential immunity on Saturday.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has accused Trump of attempting to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory in events that led to the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, but the former president claims that he is immune from prosecution because he was in office when the alleged scheme took place. Trump claimed without evidence that the election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud. He has pleaded not guilty to all four felony charges against him and claims the case is politically motivated.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on July 1 in a 6-3 decision that former presidents have immunity for official acts conducted while in office, but not for unofficial acts, the judgment was handed down all the way back to the the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C.

With the case back in Chutkan's hands, she denied Trump's motion to dismiss his charges on the grounds of presidential immunity in a brief filed on Saturday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-chutkan-hands-donald-trump-new-legal-setback/ar-AA1ob0cY

[UTUSN]

1. K&R

[onenote]

2. Not surprisingly, Newsweek gets it completely wrong. Chutkan didn't deny a motion to dismiss that was based on immunity.

On Saturday, Chutkan denied two separate motions to dismiss that had been filed by Trump. Neither of those motions was based on a claim of immunity.

The first of the motions denied in the order referenced in the article was a motion to dismiss based on "statutory grounds." It was a the motion to dismiss that Trump filed on October 23, 2023 that argued that the indictment failed to state a criminal offense. In other words, Trump's motion argued that even accepting the allegations in the indictment, they did not state facts that constituted a criminal offense. The only references to "immunity" in that motion are to a separate motion to dismiss expressly based on presidential immunity -- Chutkan's order, which denied Trump's motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense, did not address that motion and, for good measure, was "without prejudice" so its not that big a "setback" for Trump at this point. Nor did the second motion to dismiss that she addressed yesterday have anything to do with immunity. It was Trump's motion to dismiss based on "selective and vindictive prosecution," also originally filed on October 23. Chutkan's 16 page order, denying that motion, also doesn't mention presidential immunity at all. In this instance, the denial was with prejudice.

Chutkan previously denied Trump's motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity back in December. It was that order that the DC Circuit upheld in an order that the Supreme Court reversed and ordered sent back to Chutkan. She obviously wouldn't or couldn't deny the motion again without first complying with the Supreme Court's mandate that the issue be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's decision.

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to figure this out -- but one does have to take the time to actually look at what Chutkan's orders said rather than leap to a conclusion that is simply wrong. But that's Newsweek for you.

Oh, and by the way, Newsweek's illiteracy on legal matters is embarrassingly demonstrated by the statement that Chutkan denied the motion to dismiss in a "brief." But courts don't issue "briefs." They issue orders. Parties submit briefs. No one who doesn't understand that should be writing about legal matters.

[BoRaGard]

4. Newsweek lost its honor long ago

sad to see what has become of it

[BattleRow]

6. More like

weak news...

[malaise]

9. Thank you

Rec

[SleeplessinSoCal]

3. if he claims immunity protection,

Isn't he admitting guilt?

[onenote]

10. No. The point of immunity is to spare someone having to go through a trial.

You can be claiming your innocence and still take advantage of immunity where applicable.

[Evolve Dammit]

5. Let's get the "mini-trial" going. After SCOTUS ruled (ruled, hmm) on "immunity." Post haste

[twodogsbarking]

7. The extended middle finger verdict.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Question On This & Immunity

Aren't any actions taken regarding the election on behalf of a CANDIDATE, making immunity of the office holder irrelevant? The actions are, by apparent definition, irrespective of the office one of the candidates currently holds.

[Hugin]

11. That's been my question for awhile now.

I clearly remember loud squawking from the right wing coop every time they were given a chance about a Democratic incumbent misusing their office during a campaign.

Everything from splitting hairs about the use of Air Force One, having campaign strategy meetings in the White House, to misusing the free mailings office holders have for campaigning.

Now, there’s crickets about running a coup from the Oval Office ( although I can tell someone has been talking about it, because Trump has been thinking he was REALLY CLEVER about spending his time during the coup in an office just off the Oval and he and his handlers always make a point of saying that is where he was )

[calimary]

12. Have they ever offered proof?

[Hugin]

15. Not that I am aware of...

However, I am guessing that may be the general assumption because that’s where the perma-FOX teevee was located.

The whole discussion is a red herring, though. Because, the larger issue is why wasn’t the POTUS rushed to a secure location during a violent insurrection.

[calimary]

19. He probably wanted the photo op.

I'm sorry. I'm still having a hard time believing this wasn't staged, somehow. And could they have set up the gunman, not bothering to tell him he might actually be shot and killed?

It involves trump. I could be wrong, but I just can't help immediately leaning toward suspicion.

[Hugin]

20. You are far from alone with your feelings, calimary.

In the interim I have talked with people ( quite a few of them non-MAGA Republicans, who I have known for years ) and the general feeling is that nothing adds up. I suppose the vacuum of the official release of information has much to do with it. Heck, I’m not even certain Crook’s weapon was fired. How can any independent conclusions be drawn?

So, I just listen to theories. All I can be certain about is that something happened at the rally.

Trump and those around him lie so much that the water is opaque around everything he is associated with.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Distinction Without A Difference To Me

The WH is the house for the POTUS. It's silly of them to try to distinguish what room of the same building he was in.
It's weak & stupid.

[MontanaMama]

13. Kicking.

[Martin Eden]

16. Inciting insurrection to prevent the lawful transfer of power is an "official" presidential act?

Who knew?

[Cha]

17. Mahalo Judge Chukan!.. TY

[Blue Owl]

18. K&R