Objection, Your Honor!

I guess I should not have been surprised when the Judge in the January 6 case against Trump set a trial date of March 4, 2024 - the day before Super Tuesday, when 15 states hold their primary election.  So what do we know about Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will be presiding over the trial?  She was appointed by President Obama.  Newsweek reported that she contributed $1500. to the Obama campaign in 2008/2009.  And a site called World Wire said this:  "According to the Washington Post, she has been the harshest sentencing judge in those instances (presiding over more than 30 January 6 trials), imposing at least some jail or prison time in every case and occasionally going more than the term recommended by prosecutors."    

The New York Times reported that Judge Chutkan said this:  "Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule...there is a societal interest to a speedy trial."  Objection, Your Honor!  Mr. Trump is decidedly not like any defendant, as this is the first time in American history that a former President has been indicted.  Furthermore, this trial does not just involve Mr. Trump, it involves the public's right to choose their president.  

Currently, Mr. Trump is the leading Republican candidate for president.  And the case is being prosecuted by the administration of his opponent.  The entire thing smacks of election interference by Mr. Biden, Your Honor.  I would respectfully submit that the defense request for a trial date after the election should have been honored, in light of the obvious appearance of a conflict on the part of the government.  As for the "societal interest to a speedy trial," the Sixth Amendment says it is the defendant's right to a speedy trial.  Clearly he was willing to waive that.  The Constitution does not give "society" the right to a speedy trial.  Imagine all the perils if that were the case, especially in emotional and controversial cases.  

The Daily Mail reported that, in setting the March 4 trial date, the judge said to imagine that the defendant was a professional athlete.  The judge then indicated that it would be "inappropriate for me to schedule a trial date to accommodate her schedule.  The same is true here."  I was not in the courtroom.  But if the Daily Mail is accurately quoting the Judge, then Objection, Your Honor!  I do not see how a professional athlete missing some games equates to tying the hands of the leading Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States.  

The prosecution sought a protective order regarding what Mr. Trump might be allowed to say pre-trial.  Judge Chutkan:  "What the effects of my order are on a political campaign are not going to influence my decision.  This is a criminal trial...The defendant's desire to conduct a campaign, to respond to political opponents, has to yield."  Objection, Your Honor!  Your Honor has set a March 4 trial date.  The Manhattan case (alleged hush money) has a March 25 trial date.  And the Florida documents case is set for May 20.  These cases combined clearly interfere with Mr. Trump's ability to campaign, to spend time on the campaign trail.  And, such a protective order arguably denies him the right to reply to Mr. Biden's attacks on him.  Your Honor, there are multiple reasons to delay this trial until after the election.

The defense has indicated that they intend to file numerous motions.  This means that while preparing for this historic trial, they need to spend time researching the law in support of their motions.  These motions include issues of executive immunity, the First Amendment right to speech, challenging some of the subpoenas that have been issued, and whether Mr. Trump, as President, could be charged with obstruction.   

The defense argued that they needed more time to prepare for trial, with a case involving nearly 13 million pages of documents.  Besides, the prosecutor waited for 2 1/2 years after January 6 to bring their case against Trump.  Judge Chutkan:  "Discovery in 2023 is not sitting in a warehouse with boxes of paper looking at every single page," indicating that the defense could use keyword searches in databases.  

Objection, Your Honor!  I have tried hundreds of cases in my career.  Admittedly, they have all been workers compensation cases, no criminal cases.  But the idea is the same.  It is by finding all the details in the multitude of records that allows me to prove my case, and pick apart my opponent's case.  Admittedly, Your Honor, I may be a little obsessive-compulsive about this.  Okay, a lot.  But it has worked for me, and I believe the defense should, in fact, have the opportunity to review all the documents, and not just have to look at a database.   

In closing, Your Honor, I would remind the Court that Mr. Trump's 2016 opponent, Ms. Clinton, never accepted that she lost.  She repeatedly called Mr. Trump an illegitimate president, who only won because of Russian collusion.  In fact, Your Honor, Mr. Biden's party impeached Mr. Trump over the phony Russian collusion story.  And many Democrats have continued to deny that Mr. Trump won, even after Mr. Mueller issued his report.  

Yet, in 2020, with virtually every state using mail-in ballots because of the pandemic, with mail-in ballots obviously being less secure than people having to show up in person, Mr. Trump was not allowed to challenge those election results?  Your Honor, the American people deserve to have a campaign run equally by both candidates, not with one candidate having both hands tied behind his back, and with his lips sealed - especially when his opponent is the one doing the tying.  Thank you, Your Honor.