The federal criminal case accusing former President — and current Republican presidential nominee — Donald Trump of conspiring to undercut the 2020 presidential election results is back before Judge Tanya Chutkan after the U.S. Supreme Court’s widely panned recent ruling laying out a baseline of so-called presidential immunity.
A conservative majority on the high court said that presidents do hold some immunity — meaning protection from prosecution — for some actions undertaken while in office.
And now, Chutkan is getting to work. She has denied a motion from Trump to dismiss the case against him on accusations of selective and vindictive prosecution, which are specific legal concepts referring to (alleged) misconduct on prosecutors’ part. As part of her rejection of the Trump claims, Chutkan poked holes in the continuous stream of allegations from Trump that current President Joe Biden is meaningfully responsible for legal problems Trump has faced — the work, in reality, of prosecutors and grand juries.
“Similarly, the articles do not suggest that President Biden “urged” Attorney General Garland to “take decisive action” against Defendant,” said the judge, referring to news articles.
“At most, the Times article reports that President Biden privately commented on one occasion that he believed President Trump should be prosecuted, and on one separate occasion that he wished the Attorney General would act “more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.” Motion, Exh. 2 at 2. But there is no indication that President Biden ever expressed any such comments to the Attorney General or the Justice Department, much less that such comments actually resulted in politically motivated action.”
Moving forward, Chutkan and parties to the case now must grapple with the question of whether certain, key conduct alleged of Trump falls within the Supreme Court’s newly outlined immunity protections. She is holding a hearing this month — on August 16, to be specific — on scheduling questions.
