MORE from Judge Chutkan

We have yet another ruling from the DC District Court Judge today, this one denying Donald's motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution.

Judge Tanya Chutkan is wasting no time. Within 24 hours of getting jurisdiction back in the DC case against Donald, she first filed an order requiring briefs on immunity by August 9th, denying a motion to dismiss on statutory grounds without prejudice, and scheduling a status update for August 16th. And now she has ruled on Donald’s bid to throw out the case based on vindictive and selective prosecution - denying his motion to dismiss. So let’s go over her decision.

She opens her ruling by stating: At the motion to dismiss stage, the court assumes the truth of the Indictment’s allegations, a more fulsome account of which can be found in United States v. Trump. At the outset, the court must address—as it has before—Defendant’s improper reframing of the allegations against him.

I’m no lawyer, but I’m assuming you don’t want the judge in your case to call you out for repeatedly misrepresenting the facts of the case. But perhaps that explains why a large number of his former lawyers are disbarred, have had their licenses suspended, have pled guilty to crimes, or are facing sanctions. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Mar-a-Lago is a magical place where people enter as lawyers and leave as witnesses. But I digress…

He declares that the Indictment amounts only to a Government “theory . . . that it is illegal to dispute the outcome of an election and work with others to propose alternate electors.” That description mischaracterizes his alleged conduct. Defendant is charged with knowingly making false statements in furtherance of criminal conspiracies and for obstruction of election certification proceedings. The Indictment does not charge Defendant for publicly disputing the election outcome and merely “working with others” to propose alternate electors. Indeed, it expressly states: Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means . . . . At this stage, the court cannot accept Defendant’s alternate narrative.

Basically, he had every right to lie about the election. But he does not have the right to use lies in the furtherance of crimes.

She then lays out the legal standard to get a case dismissed on selective or vindictive prosecution.

Selective prosecution: The standard required to prevail is a “particularly demanding” one, and a defendant must provide “‘clear evidence’ displacing the presumption that a prosecutor has acted lawfully.” Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm

Vindictive prosecution: A vindictive prosecution claim is based on the principle that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “prohibit[s] prosecutors from ‘upping the ante’” against defendants “by filing increased charges in order to retaliate against a defendant for exercising a legal right.” United States v. Allgood

For the selective prosecution argument, Judge Chutkan writes: Defendant claims that “[p]ublic statements by [President] Biden and news reports sourced to government personnel with direct knowledge of the relevant events” are prima facie evidence that this prosecution is selective and vindictive. In support, he attaches several exhibits: a Washington Post (“Post”) article (Exh. 1), a New York Times (“Times”) article (Exh. 2), and two of his own Truth Social posts (Exhs. 3 & 4). These exhibits, he contends, conclusively demonstrate that President Biden and the Special Counsel launched this prosecution to prevent him from becoming “the next President again.” The court cannot agree.

And for the vindictive prosecution argument, she says: After reviewing Defendant’s evidence and arguments, the court cannot conclude that he has carried his burden to establish either actual vindictiveness or the presumption of it, and so finds no basis for dismissing this case on those grounds.

Lastly, she denies Donald a hearing on the motion, stating: Defendant has proffered no meaningful evidence to satisfy this “correspondingly rigorous standard” to justify the additional factfinding he seeks. Nor has he given any explanation of how a hearing would produce material evidence to support his claims. Because Defendant has failed to carry his burdens, the court must deny his request for an evidentiary hearing.

That’s quite a bit different from How Judge Aileen Cannon handles these motions. She sets briefing schedules, schedules multi-day evidentiary hearings, calls for Amicus briefs, allows oral arguments, and uses a secret docket to sit on motions for months.

You can read the entire ruling from Judge Chutkan here.

I’ll keep my laptop charged up in case she drops any other rulings today!

~AG