It was investigative reporter Julie Kelly at Real Clear Wire who already has reported on the incendiary and biased comments unleashed by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who was assigned to hear a case against President Donald Trump.
It is one of four cases, described by many observers has political schemes, against Trump, and this concerns his comments about the election in connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the Capitol that turned into a riot.
She’s warned Trump she may censor his speech while the case is pending. And while hearing cases against those accused in the January 6 events, she’s repeatedly claimed, without evidence, there was absolutely no problem with the 2020 election, that the protest was orchestrated by Trump, and that the former president is guilty of crimes.
Now Kelly is out with a new report about a hearing before Chutkan, and “it’s worse than reported.”
Chutkan is trying to run Trump into a trial in record short time, only a few months, and she’s now claiming that defense lawyers for Trump “should have begun going through the evidence … against him even before the indictment was handed down,” the Post-Millennial reported.
Kelly reported, “Chutkan marveled at [prosecutor} Jack Smith’s rapid ‘discovery’ production while downplaying fact DOJ could not name a single case in DC District that went from indictment to trial in 5 months.”
Defense lawyers have proposed a 2026 start date, but prosecutors in the Joe Biden-supervised Department of Justice say they want it much earlier.
That’s even though there are tens of millions of pages of evidence to review.
The report explained Chutkan told Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, he didn’t need any time past March 4 to review the millions of pages.
She claimed Trump’s “lawyers” had seen the material, even if Lauro hadn’t.
“For a federal prosecutor to suggest that we could go to trial in four months is not only absurd, it’s a violation of the oath of justice,” Lauro said, the New York Times reported.
“We cannot do this in the time frame the government has outlined.”
Chutkan charged that defense counsel should have been reviewing documents for a year already.
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
This post originally appeared on WND News Center.