We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

RealClearInvestigations reporter Julie Kelly cautioned those who may feel that former President Donald Trump’s election interference trial being delayed until after the election is a win.

Kelly also said it was a “travesty” that there were no cameras in the courtroom to capture the “unprepared, intemperate, smug, and condescending judge” presiding over the case.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan “laid out the schedule for next steps in the prosecution following the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump enjoys immunity for ‘official acts’ he took while in the White House,” CBS News reported. A timeline that is very similar to a timeline proposed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, which will allow the prosecution to present its evidence against Trump before Election Day.

More from CBS News:

Chutkan ordered federal prosecutors to turn over to Trump’s team all required evidence by Sept. 10, and gave Smith’s team until Sept. 26 to submit an opening brief presenting their arguments on presidential immunity. Smith’s prosecutors said in court Thursday that the immunity filing would include new information that was not included in the indictment. Chutkan’s order paves the way for that material to become public before November’s election.

The judge set an Oct. 17 deadline for Trump’s team to respond to the special counsel’s arguments and submit their own request to dismiss the indictment on immunity grounds. The government will then have until Oct. 29 to file its reply.

“It is a travesty cameras are [not] allowed in federal courtrooms so the American people can see what an unprepared, intemperate, smug, and condescending judge Tanya Chutkan is,” Kelly noted on X. “The public would be outraged at her highly partisan and aggressive handling of this unprecedented case. Chutkan, reversed by the Supreme Court and criticized by the chief justice for rushing her immunity order, came out swinging this morning.”

“Not only is she clearly agitated by SCOTUS immunity ruling, it is unclear whether she even read it,” the reporter said, adding that Chutkan said, “There will be a reversal (on her future immunity order) no matter what I do.”

“That is a dangerous sign,” Kelly noted. “What Chutkan suggested is she will recklessly handle pending immunity questions related to Trump’s comms with VP Pence because she feels SCOTUS will overturn her once again. At issue is SCOTUS determining those comms with Pence are ‘presumptively immune.’”

The judge also stated that her scheduling order would not be affected by the presidential election, according to Kelly.

“I understand there is an election” soon, Chutkan reportedly said. “It is not relevant. This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. It is nothing I will consider.”

Kelly said the judge’s “own words and actions contradict that assertion,” as Chutkan “attempted to rush the proceedings as soon as the SCOTUS mandate returned to her court–so much so that even Jack Smith had to ask to delay her status report and hearing deadline.”

“Further, she is contemplating taking what even she describes as an ‘irregular’ procedure which is allow Jack Smith to file an “opening brief” to outline why he believes the existing indictment is not covered by SCOTUS immunity ruling,” Kelly wrote. [Trump lawyer John] Lauro strenuously objected to taking such an unusual step. Such a brief, Lauro argued, would be ‘enormously prejudicial” and noted Smith already filed a superseding indictment and it is the defense’s turn to respond.”

The reporter went back to the judge’s behavior in the courtroom, which was camera-free.

“Chutkan, as I have reported before, was also in full performance mode. She made snide comments to generate laughter in the DOJ-friendly crowd. She crossed her arms, held up her hand, pointed, and smirked during her back and forth with Lauro,” Kelly said, before adding, “But perhaps her most egregious comment – and one that demonstrates she is not concerned or understands the gravity of the matter before her — is when she blurted out ‘I am not talking about the presidency of the United States I am talking about a four-count indictment.’”

“That comment alone is disqualifying and a signal that like her colleagues on the DC bench, she DGAF about what SCOTUS determines,” Kelly opined.

In a follow-up, Kelly stressed that the outcome is not a win for Trump because the judge has effectively created a means to put the 2024 Republican nominee on trial “without a jury.”

According to Today News Africa reporter Simon Ateba, “This hearing could involve witness testimony and lead to a mini-trial before the election​.”

Tom Tillison
Latest posts by Tom Tillison (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.