By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
Shutting down the destructive rhetoric of the 34-times convicted and twice-impeached former President Donald Trump’s legal defense, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that the GOP presidential nominee presented “no meaningful evidence” of political targeting by the Biden administration. Chutkan dismissed Trump’s allegations that the White House or the Justice Department pursued him out of political animus or his refusal to accept the 2020 election results as “baseless.”
In her comprehensive 16-page opinion, Judge Chutkan dismantled Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Washington, D.C., criminal case, which charges him with orchestrating conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election. Chutkan asserted that Trump’s claims of political pressure from President Joe Biden were “unsubstantiated” and relied on flimsy, inaccurately described evidence.
“The charges describe a sweeping attempt to manipulate and deceive government authorities to undermine the lawful 2020 election results,” Chutkan wrote. She further determined that, based on anonymously sourced articles, Trump’s assertions failed to demonstrate any directive from Biden or the White House influencing the prosecution.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung responded defiantly, stating, “The Crazy Kamala Harris — Crooked Joe Biden Witch Hunts against President Trump have imploded just like their failed campaign.” Cheung said that Trump’s team would continue to combat the charges vigorously.
The ruling marks Chutkan’s first major decision since the case resumed in her courtroom following an eight-month hiatus to address disputes over presidential immunity. The judge has set deadlines for court filings next week and a hearing on August 16 to discuss the case’s timeline.
Trump’s wildly inaccurate claims hinged on reports from The Washington Post and The New York Times about internal Justice Department deliberations and Biden’s frustration with the investigation’s pace. However, Chutkan found no evidence of politically motivated actions. “There is no indication that President Biden ever communicated any such directives to the Attorney General or the Justice Department,” Chutkan stated.
Additionally, Chutkan rejected Trump’s argument that the prosecution in the election case was retaliatory after his not-guilty plea in a separate classified information case. She clarified that accepting such a claim would create a loophole for defendants to derail cases against them by merely pleading not guilty and publicly criticizing the prosecution.
The ruling emerges amid the broader political context of the 2024 presidential race, where the Supreme Court has become a focal issue. Vice President Kamala Harris, now the Democratic nominee, has emphasized the conservative court’s impact on issues such as abortion and affirmative action.
Biden’s three-prong proposal to reform the Supreme Court issued a week ago, which includes imposing term limits for justices and establishing a binding code of conduct, has gained Harris’s support. The proposal addresses the declining public confidence in the court, exacerbated by recent decisions, including granting Trump some criminal immunity for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.
Harris’s stance on reproductive rights and Supreme Court reform is expected to be a central theme in the November election.
Incidentally, prominent media personality Charlamagne Tha God has voiced severe concerns about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, predicting a potential constitutional crisis if Trump loses and then challenges the election results. “The Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate institution,” he asserted. “When you look at the recent rulings — abolishing Roe v. Wade, granting presidential immunity for crimes, allowing elected officials to take bribes — it’s clear the Court is compromised.”
Charlamagne continued: “To be 100 percent clear, I absolutely believe that come November, if he loses, Donald Trump is going to challenge the results of the election, and I think the Supreme Court would overturn the results. I don’t know why we would expect them to do the right thing.”
