Advertisement
Trending

Investigation Shows Possible Anti-Trump Bias By Judge In His DC Case

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


Former President Donald Trump has complained from the start that he does not believe he can get a fair trial from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Washington, D.C. case against him brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and now he may have evidence as to why.

An investigation into the judge done by RealClearInvestigations showed the judge denouncing “one man” and accusing that “one man,” presumed to be former President Trump, of being guilty of the crimes he is accused of currently in the cases of some January 6 defendants.

One example was when she sentenced Christine Priola, of Cleveland, to 15 months in prison after she pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, WJW reported.

During the October 28 hearing she indicated that it should be former President Trump who should have been in her court.

The people involved in the January 6, 2021 incident at the 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 country, and not to the principles of democracy,” she said.

Advertisement

“It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day,” she said.

Though she did not mention the former president by name it does not take an investigator to discern who she was talking about.

Another example was when she sentenced Matthew Mazzocco, of Texas to 45 days in prison, after prosecutors only asked for probation, she again mentioned the former president, but not by name.

The defendant, she said, “went there to support one man who he viewed had the election taken from him. In total disregard of a lawfully conducted election, he went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country or in support of democracy.”

She as chosen top oversee the case and has been declared “the toughest punisher,” of those who are connected with the January 6 incident at the Capitol, and that is not the worst part for the president, The Daily Mail reported.

“Chutkan had worked at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner from 2002 until she was confirmed a federal judge in 2014,” The Mail reported.

“Boies Schiller has strong connections to the Democratic Party and then-second son Hunter Biden — whose dad President Biden is likely to face Trump in the 2024 election — was of counsel at the firm from 2009 to 2014,” it said. “It is not known if the two ever had any interaction while working there.”

Last year The Associated Press reported on the judge and her tough approach.

“Chutkan has handed out tougher sentences than the [Justice Department] was seeking in seven cases, matched its requests in four others and sent all 11 riot defendants who have come before her behind bars,” it said.

“In the four cases in which prosecutors did not seek jail time, Chutkan gave terms ranging from 14 days to 45 days,” the report said.

Advertisement

It went on to say that she put “an Ohio couple who climbed through a broken window of the U.S. Capitol,” behind bars even though prosecutors did not ask for it.

Bill O’Reilly, noted political analyst and former Fox News host, believes that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump will not be successful, unless one specific witness gives him the testimony he needs.

That witness is former Vice President Mike Pence, who O’Reilly believes is the only person whose testimony could land the former president behind bars.

“So there’s only one guy that can convict Donald Trump, and that’s Mike Pence,” he said to radio host Sid Rosenberg on Tuesday. “If Pence goes into the courtroom and says ‘Donald Trump knew the election was not a fraud, but he said it anyway, and I can prove it, and here’s the proof,’ Donald Trump goes down.”

He did say that he was doubtful that the former vice president can provide proof, but “If somebody like Mark Meadows would say ‘Yeah, I was in the same conversation and Trump said X, Y, and Z,’ the jury in the trial, whatever gets there, that would be really damning.”

“Pence, himself, is an honest man. He’s in over his head now. He did the right thing because there was no basis not to certify the electoral votes. In order for Pence to not certify them, there would have had to been evidence presented in a federal court about massive fraud in the election. That evidence was not presented, so constitutionally, Pence had to do what he did. Donald Trump doesn’t believe that, will never believe it, because he doesn’t want to believe it. But that’s the historical fact,” he said.

Back to top button