A New Trump Indictment (2020 Election)

Team Trump, Congress Press Supreme Court to Intervene In Federal Cases
Jon Dougherty, August 5, 2023

Members of Congress as well as lawyers for former President Donald Trump, want the nation’s highest court to weigh in as federal cases against him mount.

According to Newsweek, Democratic members of Congress sent a letter this week to the Judicial Conference of the United States, a consortium of 18 federal judges led by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The letter urges the conference to take action and allow televised coverage of Trump’s latest case involving his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, which occurred after his defeat in the 2020 election.

“As the policymaking body for the federal courts, the Judicial Conference has historically supported increased transparency and public access to the courts’ activities,” the letter said, according to the outlet. “Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings.

“If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses,” the letter added.

But Trump is seeking high court intervention for a different reason: He wants justices to stop the trials from happening at all.

In a Friday morning post on Truth Social, Trump vehemently criticized the criminal charges he faces, which include two new federal charges filed later in the afternoon consisting of a pair of obstruction counts and individual counts of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy against Constitutional rights.

Describing the allegations as a feeble attempt by President Joe Biden to undermine his potential 2024 campaign, Trump wants the conservative majority on the court, which he helped put in place, to support his case.

“CRAZY! My political opponent has hit me with a barrage of weak lawsuits, including D.A., A.G., and others, which require massive amounts of my time & money to adjudicate,” he wrote on the platform.

“Resources that would have gone into Ads and Rallies, will now have to be spent fighting these Radical Left Thugs in numerous courts throughout the Country. I am leading in all Polls, including against Crooked Joe, but this is not a level playing field. It is Election Interference, & the Supreme Court must intercede. MAGA!” he added.

Recent election finance reports reveal that Trump’s campaign has faced significant financial strain due to the mounting legal cases against him as he combats 78 criminal charges spanning three jurisdictions. The charges range from obstruction of justice to willful retention of national defense data and falsifying business records.

The Supreme Court has been asked to intervene in a Trump-related case already.

In October of last year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) requested the court’s intervention following a lower federal court’s order for him to testify before a special grand jury in Georgia. The grand jury was investigating whether Trump had attempted to unlawfully pressure state election officials to overturn the election, potentially leading to additional charges in the near future.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas subsequently granted Graham’s request, albeit temporarily.

Regarding the Georgia case, a legal analyst and expert for CNN made a startling prediction during a network segment on Thursday.

Elie Honig called out Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for “intermixing” politics with her prosecution of the former president for allegedly interfering in the state’s electoral processes following his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

At one point, Honig praised the DA: “Willis has a really impressive and distinguished history as a prosecutor. She has prosecuted all sorts of cases. She has done, by and large, a very good job.”

But then he pivoted: “But I have to point out she has intermixed her own political fortunes with this case in a way that I think is going to backfire because significantly against her.”

Trump says he will seek a recusal, venue change in Jan. 6 case
Kyle Cheney and Kelly Garrity | Politico
Sun, August 6, 2023 at 10:34 AM MDT

Donald Trump will ask for the federal judge overseeing the case involving his attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election to recuse herself and will seek a venue change, he wrote in a post on social media Sunday.

“There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge ‘assigned’ to the ridiculous freedom of speech/fair elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she!,” Trump wrote in all caps on Truth Social. “We will be immediately asking for recusal of this judge on very powerful grounds, and likewise for venue change, out [of] D.C.”

D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate on 95-0 vote, has delivered some of the harshest sentences to Jan. 6 defendants to date. However, she has also avoided some of the most pointed criticisms of Trump that some of her colleagues on the federal bench in D.C. have delivered in sentencing defendants involved in attack on the Capitol. Chutkan was selected at random to preside over the case.

Trump previously wrote on Truth Social that a fair trial would be “impossible” in D.C., suggesting the proceedings should instead take place in “the politically unbiased nearby State of West Virginia!” In the post, he described D.C. as “over 95% anti-Trump,” seemingly alluding to the 2020 election results in D.C., which voted 92% to 4% for Biden over Trump.

But Trump’s argument has been repeatedly rejected by federal judges in D.C. who have handled other politically sensitive cases stemming from the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Dozens of Jan. 6 defendants have attempted to transfer their cases outside of Washington, D.C., claiming the city’s liberal lean makes it impossible to secure a fair trial for those who are almost uniformly Trump supporters.

First and foremost, the judges note, the city is large and diverse enough that the presumption 12 impartial jurors could not be found is far-fetched. Secondly, they’ve noted, jurors are selected after a rigorous “voir dire” process that includes intensive questioning by the lawyers and the judge, a system intended to weed out jurors who might have an impermissible bias or be unwilling to set aside political views to judge a case based on evidence and facts.

Usually, judges have said only after that process, if it still seems impossible to seat a fair jury, would a motion to transfer the case to a different venue be in order. In other words, even if Chutkan were willing to consider changing venue, it’s unlikely she would do so prior to a voir dire process.

Trump’s recusal motion is unlikely to fare much better. Chutkan has shown no indication that she intends to recuse, nor is there any known conflict that would typically require it. She has previously ruled against Trump in his bid to shield his White House papers from the Jan. 6 select committee, but she has not opined about his innocence or guilt of any crimes associated with the charges he now faces. It’s unclear what other bases Trump may cite to call for her recusal.

7000 comments at https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-seek-recusal-venue-163447676.html

Search warrant was issued for Donald Trump's Twitter account
Published 8 hours ago | BBC News
By Mike Wendling

The US special counsel investigating Donald Trump obtained a secret search warrant for the ex-president's Twitter data in January, unsealed records show.

Jack Smith requested "data and records" relating to Mr Trump's account which may have included unpublished posts.

After initially resisting the warrant, Twitter eventually complied, but missed a court-ordered deadline by three days.

The delay resulted in the company being handed a $350,000 (£275,000) fine for contempt of court.

The existence of the search warrant and the legal fight over it was revealed in court documents unsealed on Wednesday.

According to the unsealed ruling, which still includes some redactions, Twitter's lawyers did not object to the warrant itself, but disputed the nondisclosure order which kept it secret.

The company, now known as X under the ownership of Elon Musk, argued that it should be allowed to notify customers whose accounts are subject to search warrants.

X handed over the data in February, but appealed the fine. Its case was rejected by a US appeals court last month.

There is little indication in the documents about what exactly Mr Smith was seeking, with the court filing noting that only that the warrant directed the company "to produce data and records" related to Mr Trump's account.

The US congressional panel investigating the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot found that Mr Trump had drafted - but never sent - a tweet urging his supporters to come to Washington.

It said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10 a.m. on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the steal!"

The @realdonaldtrump account, which has 86.5m followers, was suspended after the riot.

It was reinstated in November 2022 after Mr Musk ran a poll asking users whether the former president should be allowed back on the platform.

Mr Trump has not posted on X since being reinstated, instead preferring to use his own Truth Social network.

Experts have noted that his Truth Social business contracts mean he potentially stands to lose millions if he resumes posting on X.

Mr Trump responded to news of the search warrant on Truth Social, writing that it was a "major 'hit' on my civil rights... These are DARK DAYS IN AMERICA!"

He has been charged in the two investigations led by Mr Smith, one surrounding events following the 2020 election and the other relating to the handling of classified documents.

Prosecutors seek Jan. 2 trial date for Donald Trump in his 2020 election conspiracy case
Associated Press
ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
August 10, 2023 at 11:55 AM

Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith's team asked a judge on Thursday to set a Jan. 2 trial date for former President Donald Trump in the case charging him with plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss.

If U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agrees with prosecutors' proposal, the case against the early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential primary would open right before the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, which was fueled by Trump's false claims about the election.

The proposed date is also just under two weeks before the first votes are set to be cast in the Republican presidential race, with Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses scheduled for Jan. 15.

Prosecutors said in court papers that they want the case to move to trial swiftly in Washington's federal court, setting up a likely battle with defense attorneys who have already suggested they will try slow things down. Smith's team says the government's case should take no longer than four to six weeks.

"A January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial — an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes," prosecutors wrote.

Trump's lawyers have not submitted their proposed trial date. The judge is expected to set the date during a court hearing scheduled for Aug. 28.

Trump is already scheduled to be in a courtroom in the heat of next year’s presidential primary season, with a March 25 criminal trial scheduled in a separate case in New York stemming from hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign. The former president is scheduled to go to trial in May in another case brought by Smith over his handling of classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

Trump faces charges including conspiracy to defraud the United States for what prosecutors say was a weekslong plot to subvert the will of voters and cling to power after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.

The indictment accuses Trump of spreading lies about election fraud he knew were false to sow distrust in the democratic process and pressuring Vice President Mike Pence and state election officials to take action in a brazen attempt to cling to power.

Trump, who pleaded not guilty last week, says he is innocent and has portrayed the investigation as politically motivated. His legal team has indicated it will argue that he was relying on the advice of lawyers around him in 2020 and had the right to challenge an election he believed was rigged.

Trump has already said he will push to have the 2020 election case moved out of Washington, claiming he can't get a fair trial in the heavily Democratic city, which voted overwhelmingly for Biden. But it's extremely difficult to convince a judge that a jury pool is so biased that a trial must be moved. And judges in Washington, including Chutkan, have repeatedly rejected similar efforts by Trump supporters charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Smith's Washington case accuses Trump of orchestrating schemes to enlist slates of fake electors in seven battleground states won by Biden to sign false certificates representing themselves as legitimate electors and try to use the investigative power of the Justice Department to launch sham election fraud probes. When his efforts failed, prosecutors say, he badgered Pence to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral votes before Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, the day an angry mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol.

In an early glimpse into the intense legal fighting to come in the case, prosecutors and defense attorneys have been arguing over a protective order that would place rules on what Trump's legal team can do with evidence handed over by the government as they prepare for trial. Protective orders are not uncommon in criminal cases and are usually imposed with little legal wrangling.

But Trump's lawyers say prosecutors' proposal — which seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from publicly disclosing evidence handed over by the government — is too broad and would restrict his First Amendment rights. They are urging the judge to impose a more limited protective order that would restrict only the public sharing of information deemed “sensitive," like grand jury materials.

In urging the judge to impose the order, prosecutors noted Trump's tendency to use social media to talk about the legal cases against him and expressed concern that he would share sensitive information that could intimidate witnesses.

Chutkan is expected to hold a hearing on the matter on Friday in Washington's federal court.

It comes as Trump is also gearing up for a possible fourth indictment, in a case out of Fulton County, Georgia, over alleged efforts by him and his Republican allies to illegally meddle in the 2020 election in that state. The county district attorney, Fani Willis, a Democrat, has signaled that any indictments in the case would likely come this month

Judge sets start date of March 4 for Trump's federal election interference trial
KATHERINE FAULDERS, ALEXANDER MALLIN and LAURA ROMERO
Mon, August 28, 2023 at 10:26 AM MDT

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's federal election interference case has ordered the trial to begin on March 4, 2024.

The ruling came after Trump's attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith's team clashed in court Monday over when the case should go to trial.

Smith said in a filing earlier this month that he was prepared to take Trump to trial by Jan. 2, on the grounds that the date would "vindicate the public's strong interest" in a speedy trial.

Trump's lawyers, in contrast, requested that Judge Tanya Chutkan, the federal judge overseeing the case, schedule the trial for April of 2026 -- more than two and a half years from now -- due in part to the extended period of time they said they would need to review the large amount of discovery evidence the government has provided in the case.

In setting the trial date for March, Judge Chutkan said she believed she was giving Trump's legal team "adequate time" to prepare, while ensuring "the public's interest in seeing this case resolved in a timely manner."

After her ruling, Trump attorney John Lauro said while they will abide by the date set by Chutkan, "we will not be able to provide adequate representation" to Trump and that it would deny him "effective assistance of counsel."

Arguing against prosecutors' proposed January start date, Lauro said during Monday's hearing that it would be a "miscarriage of justice" to schedule a trial that soon, and accused the special counsel's of attempts to turn this into a "show trial."

"Mr. Trump -- President Trump -- is entitled to a fair trial. This is a request for a show trial, not a speedy trial," Lauro said.

"Mr. Lauro, as I said, let's take the temperature down," Chutkan told the attorney, saying Trump has "considerable resources that every criminal defendant does not usually have."

"Never in the history of the United States have we seen a case of this magnitude go to trial in four months," Lauro said. "This man's liberty and life is at stake and he deserves an adequate representation. He is no different than any American."

"I understand, Mr. Lauro," the judge replied, "but you're not going to get two more years. This is not going to trial in 2026."

Conversely, the judge said, the government hadn't pointed to any other cases that have gone to trial within five months following indictment.

Trump earlier this month pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors," using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations," trying to enlist the vice president to "alter the election results," and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.

Trump has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the charges as "a persecution of a political opponent."

In a filing following the indictment, former president's attorneys said the 2026 date was necessary due to the large amount of discovery provided to them by the government -- roughly 11.5 million pages of evidence -- and said that if they began reviewing the documents today, "we would need to proceed at a pace of 99,762 pages per day to finish the government's initial production by its proposed date for jury selection."

"You've known this was coming," Judge Chutkan said Monday regarding the amount of discovery. "A lot of this material was in the hands of Mr. Trump and/or his counsel for a significant amount of time."

Lauro responded that every American citizen is entitled to "counsel with a reasonable amount of time to prepare."

"We cannot be ready under the circumstances of this case until we have a reasonable amount of time consistent with justice," he said.

But special counsel prosecutor Molly Gaston disputed the idea that Trump's legal team only began preparing his defense at the moment he was indicted, pointing to Trump's written and video statements made during the Jan. 6 House select committee's proceedings where he put forward various defenses for his actions, as well as "extensive pre-indictment litigation" that his attorneys were engaged in as they sought to prevent various witnesses from testifying before the D.C. grand jury.

Gaston said the special counsel's team received permission to disclose during Monday's hearing that Trump's legal team secretly fought in five separate sealed proceedings between August of 2022 and March of 2023 to prevent or limit the scope of grand jury testimony from 14 separate witnesses.

"We are not starting fresh at indictment in this case," Gaston said.

Gaston also argued during Monday's hearing that what she called Trump's "near-daily" attacks against the prosecution and the court made it all the more crucial that his case go to trial as soon as his defense is prepared.

Trump, she said, "has publicly disparaged witnesses. He has attacked the integrity of the courts, the citizens of the District of Columbia that make up our jury pool, and this potentially prejudices the jury."

Chutkan closed the hearing by cautioning parties again that she was "watching carefully" for any actions taken that might impact the jury pool in D.C.

Federal Court Shuts Down Special Counsel Jack Smith Again
Jon Dougherty, September 24, 2023

A U.S. federal appeals court has thrown up a big roadblock for special counsel Jack Smith as he continues his investigation into the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol Building two-and-a-half years ago.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last week that Smith cannot have access to the phone records of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) because allowing him to obtain the information amounts to a breach of the GOP lawmaker’s immunity under the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause.

Smith was seeking Perry’s communications with colleagues and Executive Branch officials, Politico reported. However, the clause in question shields members of Congress from being slapped with legal proceedings while they are engaging in their elected official duties.

“While elections are political events, a member’s deliberation about whether to certify a presidential election or how to assess information relevant to legislation about federal election procedures are textbook legislative acts,” U.S. District Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the opinion issued last week.

Newsmax noted further:

The decision marked the the first time an appeals court has held that lawmakers’ cellphones are subject to the same protections as their physical offices.

It also was the first significant legal setback for Smith in his bid to obtain evidence about involvement by allies of Donald Trump in the then-president’s alleged effort to overturn the 2020 election, Politico reported.

Rao, a Trump appointee, was joined by another Trump appointee, Judge Gregory Katsas, and by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush.

The three-judge panel’s ruling overturns a lower court decision by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who mostly sided with the government’s request to gain access to Perry’s cellphone data.

The appeals court sent the case back to Howell’s court and instructed her to apply the new ruling to any future decision in the case, according to the outlets.

Meanwhile, Fox News host Jesse Watters tore into Smith for indicting former President Donald Trump in two separate cases.

During a recent segment on “The Five,” Watters called Smith a “nervous wreck” after he unsealed Trump’s grand jury indictment while reminding viewers of Smith’s troubled legal history before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Smith obtained a four-count indictment against Trump concerning his actions to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election. They include willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements.

In June, Smith had secured a 37-count indictment against Trump following a quick investigation into allegations involving classified documents. On Thursday, a superseding indictment was issued, which also included charges against Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida estate owned by former President Trump.

“That was Special Counsel Jack Smith, who looked like a bedraggled nervous wreck, dripping with anger and highly emotional,” Watters said after showing a clip of Smith’s press conference earlier in the day announcing the new charges.

“The last time Jack Smith charged a politician, the case was so weak, it got tossed out of the Supreme Court unanimously. The Biden Justice Department is using obscure federal statutes to put a former president in prison for the rest of his life,” Watters told viewers.

Watters was referring to a case where Smith prosecuted then-Republican Gov. Bob McDowell of Virginia over receiving gifts, securing a conviction that the Supreme Court unanimously threw out.

“These charges are not bribery, not assault, not tax evasion, not sex trafficking. They’re charging Donald Trump under the Act of 1866,” Watters said. “It was used against the [Ku Klux] Klan, and now they are using it against Trump.”

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts and has likened the indictments to election interference.

Video at https://conservativebrief.com/court-down-76678/

Jordan Hints At Supporting Effort to Defund Special Counsel Jack Smith
Jon Dougherty, September 26, 2023

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) hinted that he would support a measure to defund special counsel Jack Smith’s ongoing investigation into former President Donald Trump following two indictments.

In an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, Jordan was discussing the GOP-led House’s efforts to pass appropriations bills before the end of the month, when the government runs out of money when he brought up funding for Smith’s investigations:

Well, there’s been, there’s been a fight over the number. What level we’re actually going to fund at? Look, I want to reduce spending too. I know what the debt problem is. But in a divided government, there’s been a number that’s agreed on to fund the government.

And frankly, it’s less than the year before, which is, which is a huge step when you got divided when, when, when we control one-half of one-third of the government by five votes. And we’ve actually got to negotiate a number that’s less than Joe Biden and the Democrats spent last year. I think that’s a win. So let’s hold on to that number if we can. There’s some, there’s some debate within our conference, and I get that, let’s hold on to that number if we can. But let’s win the policies.

The other policy frankly, we should consider putting on these bills is the policy that says you can’t, you can’t fund the attack on your political opponent, which is exactly what Joe Biden is doing when he’s funding this Jack Smith operation going after his political opponent.

Jordan is not the only Republican who has mentioned defunding Smith’s probe, especially after a special counsel appointed in January to investigate President Joe Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified materials — Robert Hur — hasn’t been heard from since.

Rep. Matt Gaetz offered up legislation in July that, if passed, would defund Smith’s investigations.

According to Florida Daily, Gaetz said there is a reasonable intention behind his measure, and that is to let American voters know where their individual representatives — particularly GOP lawmakers — stand on the issue.

“Rep. Gaetz’s bill would block federal funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or any funds in any trust fund of the federal government from being used for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office and investigation,” Gaetz’s office noted in a statement.

“On July 18th, 2023, President Donald J. Trump released a statement indicating he is the target of the investigation by Special Counsel Smith related to January 6th. This indicates Special Counsel Smith’s office has engaged in election interference by using his investigation to go after President Trump, who public polling has indicated is the leading contender in the 2024 Republican primary for president,” the statement continued.

“The government is being weaponized to go after President Donald J. Trump. The House of Representatives must defund Jack Smith’s office and end the witch hunt,” said Gaetz. “The power of the purse is not some intermittent thing that we wield every fiscal cycle.

“It’s something that we have to wield day in and day out to achieve victory for our people and to stop this. I’m under no illusion that the Democrats will bring such legislation up in the Senate, but the American people deserve to know where members of Congress stand,” he said.

Appeals court pauses Trump gag order in 2020 election interference case
CBS News
ROBERT LEGARE
November 3, 2023 at 4:31 PM

Washington — A three-judge appeals court panel paused the federal gag order that partially limited former president Donald Trump's speech ahead of his federal 2020 election interference trial in Washington, D.C., according to a court ruling filed Friday.

The ruling administratively and temporarily stays Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision to bar Trump from publicly targeting court staff, potential witnesses and members of special counsel Jack Smith's prosecutorial team, a ruling Trump asked the higher court to put on hold. Friday's order is not a decision on the merits of the gag order Chutkan issued last month, but is meant to give the appeals court more time to consider the arguments in the case.

Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, Cornelia Pillard, another Obama appointee and Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee, granted the former president's request for an emergency pause on the order less than 24 hours after Trump's attorneys filed a motion for a stay.

The panel also ordered a briefing schedule with oral arguments before the appeals court to take place on Nov. 20 in Washington, D.C.

Chutkan's order, Trump's lawyers alleged in their Thursday filing, is "muzzling President Trump's core political speech during an historic Presidential campaign." His attorneys called Judge Chutkan's recently reinstated gag order unprecedented, sweeping and "viewpoint based."

The Justice Department opposed Trump's request and has consistently pushed the courts to keep the gag order in place. Judge Chutkan denied a previous request from the former president that she stay her own ruling, but this is now the second time the gag order has been administratively stayed — paused so courts can consider the legal question — after Chutkan herself paused her own ruling for a few days.

Smith's team originally asked the judge to restrict the former president's speech during pre-trial litigation, citing what prosecutors alleged were the potential dangers his language posed to the administration of justice and the integrity of the legal proceedings.

Chutkan only partially granted the government request, barring Trump from publicly targeting court staff, federal prosecutors by name, and potential witnesses in the case. The judge said at the time her order was not based on whether she liked the comments in question, but whether they could imperil the future trial. Trump, Chutkan said, was being treated like any other defendant. She said the president would be permitted to say what he wanted about the Justice Department and Biden administration and to broadly criticize the case against him.

The special counsel charged Trump with four counts related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election earlier this year. He pleaded not guilty to all the charges, denied wrongdoing and has accused Smith's team and Judge Chutkan herself of being politically biased against him.

But in numerous hearings, Chutkan has demanded that politics not enter her courtroom and said her gag order was not about whether she agreed with Trump's speech, but whether it posed a threat to a fair trial in the future.