In the most recent decision from federal Judge Tanya Chutkan in the criminal case that Donald Trump is facing on allegations of conspiracies that targeted the 2020 presidential election, she dings the ex-president’s team for filing bizarre and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in court.
The context was a dispute over whether language in Trump’s original indictment tying him in general terms to the violence of January 6 would remain. Chutkan decided affirmatively, noting how a key potential avenue for the cultivation of potential prejudice among jurors from any language in the indictment at all wouldn’t even be there because they’re not getting a copy of it. She also observed how, despite Trump’s claims there was still a threat of prejudice from the effective distribution of portions of the indictment in media reports, the ex-president’s team presented no specific evidence for this.
Besides, as has come up time and time again across similar disputes, the jury selection process will provide an opportunity for unearthing and examining potential hurdles on the path to justice. The conspiracy theories from Trump that Chutkan also rebuffed were alleging a meaningful role by President Biden in the formulation of Justice Department investigations into Trump.
“Defendant’s sixteen-page Reply In Support of the Motion, despite making numerous inflammatory and unsupported accusations of its own, see, e.g., ECF No. 156 at 7 (“President Biden directed the Department of Justice to prosecute his leading opponent for the presidency through a calculated leak to the New York Times.”), devotes only a single paragraph to the prejudice requirement,” Chutkan wrote last week. The portion in parentheses is the conspiracy theory from Trump.
Jack Smith’s team itself has rebuffed similar allegations from Trump. “The defendant’s theory of discriminatory purpose is that the incumbent president directed the defendant’s prosecution to defeat him in the next election,” the government summarized earlier this month, adding: “The defendant fails to bring forth any evidence to support this claim. That is because there is no such evidence: the incumbent president has no role in this case, and the career prosecutors handling this matter would not participate in this prosecution if it were otherwise.”
