Judge Chutkan Laughs Off Trump’s Legal Team Referring Immunity

Donald Trump’s legal team will not find Judge Tanya Chutkan nearly as receptive to their arguments as they did Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump.

To that point, when Trump’s attorneys tried to argue that Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed illegally and that the Supreme Court’s immunity should lead to this case being dismissed, Chutkan could hardly stifle back a laugh.

The judge merely smirked and told them their argument was not “particularly persuasive.”

Laughing It Off

According to a New York Times report, when Trump’s attorney argued that the Supreme Court was “crystal clear” in its immunity ruling, Chutkan “chuckled” and rolled her eyes.

First and foremost, there really was no new ruling issued by the court, only a regurgitation of precedents that have been in place since the 1960s.

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of attorneys and the media acting like the Supreme Court issued some landmark decision when that was not the case at all.

For decades, the standard has been that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for official acts of a president.

For instance, this is why Barack Obama could not be prosecuted for murder in this country when bad intelligence led to a missile strike against a wedding party instead of terrorists.

A president’s private acts, such as his personal business, or someone going rogue and ordering a hit to take out a political opponent, would never fall under the immunity clause.

That is why Judge Chutkan laughed…

Reading the superseding indictment by Smith against Trump in this case, he specifically changed the wording to back his allegation that Trump was not acting as president.

For instance, in one charge, he is referred to as a political candidate, and in another Smith refers to Trump’s political campaign.

For all the maneuvering that Trump’s attorneys have been able to do throughout this case, there is simply no way the Supreme Court will ever consider ruling that his business entries or political rallies were official acts of a president, especially in the case of the hush-money, where Trump was not even president at the time.

Regardless, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those charges are going to stand and anyone telling you different is lying and simply trying to get you to support and share their content.

I have always vowed to be truthful with my readers, or at least as truthful as I can be based on my knowledge of history, our legal system, and our political system… and that is what I am being here.

Now, if Trump wins this election, he cannot stand trial as a president, so the likelihood of these charges seeing the inside of a courtroom dwindles considerably, and that does not even touch on the subject of a Trump AG dismissing the charges (but that would likely lead to the AG and Trump being brought up on impeachment charges if Dems have the House).

So this drama is far from being played out just yet.