Federal Judge Issues Ruling After Trump Team Requests Deadline Extension


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

The judge in former President Donald Trump’s criminal case in Washington, DC, who was appointed by former President Obama, has issued an emergency decision.

It is the first real decision she has had to make in the case and, late Saturday, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request from the former president’s team to extend the deadline they had to respond to a request for an order of protection from Special Counsel Jack Smith, CNN reported.

The Trump team has until Monday at 5 PM to respond to the request, but had asked to have until Thursday to work with prosecutors on what their client would and would not be allowed to say, but that request was denied.

It comes after Trump made a post on Truth Social on Friday night in which he said “If You Go After Me, I’m Coming After You.”


In the motion filed on Friday Smith used the post as evidence for the need for a protective order.

“All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public. Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him. And in recent days, regarding this case, the defendant has issued multiple posts—either specifically or by implication—including the following, which the defendant posted just hours ago,” Smith said.

“If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury transcripts—obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” the special counsel said.

The special counsel’s team included a proposal for the judge to sign if she decided in their favor.

“The defendant and defense counsel shall not disclose the Materials or their contents directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than persons employed to assist in the defense, persons who are interviewed as potential witnesses, counsel for potential witnesses, and other persons to whom the Court may authorize disclosure (collectively, “Authorized Persons”). Potential witnesses and their counsel may be shown copies of the Materials as necessary to prepare the defense, but they may not retain copies without prior permission of the Court,” it said.

The former president shared a statement on Truth Social in response to the filing from Smith’s office.

“The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth,” it said.


On Saturday the judge issued her order demanding the former president’s attorneys respond by Monday at 5P M, Mediaite reported.

“MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government’s 10 Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant’s position on the Motion. If Defendant disagrees with any portion of the government’s proposed Protective Order, ECF No. 10-1, his response shall include a revised version of that Protective Order with any modifications in redline. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023,” the order said.

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan was chosen to 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.”

Back to top button