Judge In Trump Case Hit With New Bias Allegations

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is presiding over the case involving former President Donald Trump’s latest indictment, has already faced multiple calls to recuse herself.

For starters, she worked alongside President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, at a D.C. law firm. Since the case against Trump is being brought by Biden’s Justice Department, critics like former House Intelligence Committee lead counsel Kash Patel insist that Chutkan’s involvement is improper.

Ahead of a court hearing on Friday regarding the implementation of a protective order in the case, new evidence emerged suggesting that the judge is already revealing her bias against Trump.

The former president, who is facing allegations that he illegally challenged the results of the 2020 election, initially sought to reschedule the hearing since one of his lawyers would not be able to appear in court. Attorneys suggested Thursday, but Chutkan reportedly refused to consider the change and the hearing went on without Trump’s full defense team.

As for the protective order itself, Trump’s supporters say it would prevent him from making his case to voters as he continues campaigning for the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination.

Furthermore, when Trump’s defense attorneys were advised of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s protective order request, Chutkan gave them just one business day to respond. While she denied the defense team’s request for an extension in this case, a review of prior cases shows that she has provided other defendants with significantly more time to provide a response.

The judge took exception to the Trump team’s assertion that limiting the former president’s ability to speak about the case would infringe on his constitutional rights.

“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute,” she insisted. “In a criminal case such as this one, a defendant’s free speech is subject to release conditions … and must yield to orderly administration of justice.”

While Smith’s request would curtail certain types of speech, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade explained that it is not the same as a gag order.

“He is instead seeking a protective order that would prevent the public disclosure of discovery material such as evidence, witness grand jury testimony and interviews,” she said.