Former President Donald Trump again took aim at the judge overseeing his election conspiracy case despite being issued a warning to curtail his frequent outbursts.
The former president in a Monday Truth Social post criticized U.S. District Jude Tanya Chutkan as "highly partisan" and "VERY BIASED AND UNFAIR" as he shared a quote from Chutkan — a well-known administer of tough sentences for Jan. 6 insurrectionists — as she handed down charges to one of the thousands of rioters who laid siege to the Capitol.
"The following TRUTH is a quote by highly partisan Judge Tanya Chutkan, angrily sentencing a J-6er in October of 2022. She obviously wants me behind bars. VERY BIASED AND UNFAIR!" Trump wrote in an early morning Truth, before citing Chutkan's sentencing:
"'I SEE THE VIDEOTAPES. I SEE THE FOOTAGE OF THE FLAGS AND THE SIGNS THAT PEOPLE WERE CARRYING AND THE HATS THAT THEY WERE WEARING, AND THE GARB. AND THE PEOPLE WHO MOBBED THE CAPITOL WERE THERE IN FEALTY, IN LOYALTY, TO ONE MAN, NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION, OF WHICH MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO COME BEFORE ME SEEM WOEFULLY IGNORANT; NOT TO THE IDEALS OF THIS COUNTRY, AND NOT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY. IT'S A BLIND LOYALTY TO ONE PERSON WHO, BY THE WAY, REMAINS FREE TO THIS DAY.' Judge Tanya Chutkan!"
In new post, Trump points to quote from Judge Chutkan, who said many J6ers mobbed Capitol and go to jail because of 'blind loyalty to one person who...remains free to this day.' Says Chutkan 'obviously wants me behind bars' and is 'VERY BIASED & UNFAIR!'https://t.co/X2zS1rg5Pz pic.twitter.com/vFZwONMizA
— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 14, 2023
Trump also shared a post falsely claiming that Chutkan "openly admitted she's running election interference against Trump."
MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin pushed back on the claim.
"This should be obvious, but I was there—and she said exactly the opposite: The fact of the election and Trump's role within it would not impact her decision making. When one judge's striving for impartiality is broadcast as interference, justice suffers. Will Trump?" she tweeted.
This should be obvious, but I was there—and she said exactly the opposite: The fact of the election and Trump’s role within it would not impact her decision making. When one judge’s striving for impartiality is broadcast as interference, justice suffers. Will Trump? https://t.co/6Ui96JLu1v
— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) August 13, 2023
The Washington Post previously reported that Chutkan, an Obama-era appointee, was one of the first federal judges in Washington D.C. to scrutinize Trump's attempts to invoke presidential power when he was mandated by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attacks to turn over White House communications.
The ex-president, ostensibly unable to stay quiet amid his ongoing legal plights, already claimed that he would be seeking recusal of Chutkan.
"THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE 'ASSIGNED' TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE," Trump previously wrote on Truth Social. "EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, AND SO DOES SHE! WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF D.C. [sic]"
However, not long after Trump's statement, his attorney John Lauro said that there were no immediate plans to pursue a recusal and that the former president had merely been speaking "with a layman's political sense."
"We haven't made a final decision on that issue at all," Lauro said.
On Friday, Judge Chutkan held a hearing to discuss a protective order proposed by special counsel Jack Smith's team in order to prevent Trump from publicizing evidence in the case through his social media rants. Prosecutors had previously asked Chutkan to issue a protective order after Trump posted the following threatening message on Truth Social: "If you go after me, I'm coming after you!"
During the hearing, she cautioned Lauro about Trump's "inflammatory" statements, saying that she would not hesitate to speed up his trial if he continues.
"I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case," Chutkan said. "I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings."
"To the extent your client wants to make statements on the internet, that has to yield to witness security," she said.
"The fact that he's running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice," Chutkan said. "If that means he can't say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that's how it has to be."
"Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process," she added later in the hearing. "The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly."
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Kaytal tweeted that it "would not surprise me if Judge Chutkan called a hearing, with Trump's presence, given his new remarks."
It would not surprise me if Judge Chutkan called a hearing, with Trump’s presence, given his new remarks. https://t.co/K84C5431lz
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) August 14, 2023
"He is just daring the judge now," wrote attorney Bradley Moss.
He is just daring the judge now. pic.twitter.com/wbCCDJBXzv
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) August 14, 2023
"He can't help himself. And that's not an excuse, it's outrageous. It is directly contrary to what the judge just warned him against," CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said on Monday, predicting Trump was trying to lay the groundwork to push for her recusal. "Judges aren't going to go for that, Judge Chutkan is not going to go for that. Also, I think it has to be said, these accusations by Donald Trump, completely unfair, completely unwarranted. She has had other January 6 cases. She has handled them properly. She has sentenced them appropriately. She's not been overturned on appeal on anything. So these are just outrageous comments. It will be interesting to see whether Judge Chutkan does anything about this. And if so, what?"
