GET THE APP
Friday, April 25, 2025

Tag: Tanya Chutkan

chutkan
March 19, 2025
Lawfare

Anti-Trump, Foreign-Born Judge Stops EPA from Ending Biden’s $14B ‘Green Bank’ Scam.

A federal judge has halted the attempts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke $14 billion in grants awarded to three far-left environmentalist organizations. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the EPA’s claims of fraud against the groups, stating that the government’s allegations were too vague and lacked substantiation. The EPA had tried to terminate the grant program, which originally totaled $20 billion as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The decision also prevents Citibank, which manages the funds for the EPA, from reallocating the money elsewhere. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had accused the grant recipients of mismanagement and fraud in announcing the freeze. However, the judge found Zeldin’s evidence insufficient and questioned the rationale for terminating the grants before reviewing the program.

The three climate organizations—Climate United, the Coalition for Green Capital, and Power Forward Communities—had filed a lawsuit against the EPA, Zeldin, and Citibank. They argued that they were unfairly denied access to funds previously awarded for green energy projects. The grant recipients claimed the funds are essential for their ongoing projects and warned of potential layoffs.

Judge Chutkan’s ruling maintains the status quo—but she did not instruct Citibank to unfreeze the funds, leaving future funding in limbo. On social media, Administrator Zeldin asserted that the grants were distributed in a way that undermined federal oversight and vowed to reclaim the funds for the U.S. Treasury. He previously described the program as an effort to funnel taxpayer money to politically connected organizations without proper accountability.

Notably, Judge Chutkan has been a long-standing foe of President Donald J. Trump. Appointed in 2013 by President Barack Obama, Chutkan is a former employee of Trump-Russia hoax dossier firm Fusion GPS and originally Jamaican, from a family of “dangerous subversive agents.” In 2021, Chutkan denied Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in his election interference case, in a decision the Supreme Court later reversed.

show less
A federal judge has halted the attempts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke $14 billion in grants awarded to three far-left environmentalist organizations. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the EPA's claims of fraud against the groups, stating that the government's allegations were too vague and lacked substantiation. The EPA had tried to terminate the grant program, which originally totaled $20 billion as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. show more
chutkan
February 18, 2025
Jack Montgomery
Lawfare

Anti-Trump, Foreign-Born Judge Now Presides Over Crucial DOGE Hearing.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who gained prominence driving some of the failed lawfare cases against President Donald J. Trump prior to his reelection, is now presiding over a case involving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The lawsuit, filed by various Democrat-led states, seeks to prevent DOGE from obtaining access to government data.

Appointed in 2013 by President Barack Obama, Chutkan is a former employee of Trump-Russia hoax dossier firm Fusion GPS and originally Jamaican, from a family of “dangerous subversive agents.”

In 2021, Chutkan denied Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in his election interference case, which the Supreme Court later reversed. Her judgments against the January 6 defendants are also notable, as she issued unusually harsh sentences—sometimes going far beyond what prosecutors requested—and openly criticized Trump’s pardons for those involved, saying they could not “whitewash the blood, feces, and terror that the mob left in its wake [or] repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”

The current case centers on Elon Musk’s DOGE and the extent of its data access and authority over federal employment decisions. Judge Chutkan’s history suggests she will likely be hostile to Trump’s administrative actions.

show less
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who gained prominence driving some of the failed lawfare cases against President Donald J. Trump prior to his reelection, is now presiding over a case involving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The lawsuit, filed by various Democrat-led states, seeks to prevent DOGE from obtaining access to government data. show more
chutkan
November 25, 2024
William Upton
Breaking
Lawfare

BREAKING: Far-Left Judge Dismisses DC Case Against Trump.

Far-left U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan is dismissing Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s case against President-elect Donald J. Trump in Washington, D.C. Earlier today, Smith filed a motion in federal court asking that the charges be dropped and the case dismissed, noting that the prohibition on prosecuting a sitting president is “categorical.”

“Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here. Where a prosecutor moves to dismiss an indictment without prejudice, ‘there is a strong presumption in favor’ of that course,” the judge wrote. Chutkan goes on to note, however, that the immunity enjoyed by a president is only temporary—suggesting a future Democratic government could seek to revive the charges.

The Washington, D.C. prosecution involved allegations that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 presidential election. While this federal prosecution is officially over, it is expected that the second DOJ case—currently under appeal in Florida—will soon be dismissed entirely as well.

show less
Far-left U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan is dismissing Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's case against President-elect Donald J. Trump in Washington, D.C. Earlier today, Smith filed a motion in federal court asking that the charges be dropped and the case dismissed, noting that the prohibition on prosecuting a sitting president is "categorical." show more
chutkan marxist
October 11, 2024
William Upton
Election 2024
Lawfare

Judge Says Jack Smith’s Election Interference Can Continue.

U.S. District Court Judge Tayna Chutkan has rejected a motion filed by President Donald J. Trump’s legal team asking that the Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s (DOJ) special counsel, Jack Smith, refrain from publicizing additional documents outlining his lawfare case against the Republican nominee public before the election. The ruling follows the unsealing of Smith’s 165-page legal brief against Trump’s presidential immunity claim last week.

Specifically, Smith is seeking to file an appendix to the immunity brief, which includes grand jury transcripts. “Defendant has now filed an opposition objecting to unsealing any part of the Appendix. ECF No. 259. As in his previous filing, he identifies no specific substantive objections to particular proposed redactions,” Chutkan wrote in her order on Thursday.

The foreign-born, far-left judge added: “For the same reasons set forth in its decision with respect to the Motion, ECF No. 251, the court determines that the Government’s proposed redactions to the Appendix are appropriate, and that Defendant’s blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit. As the court has stated previously, ‘Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings’ is not a cognizable legal prejudice.”

However, any public filings by Smith will be delayed for at least a week, as Chutkan did grant a seven-day stay on the decision, allowing Trump’s lawyers time to appeal her ruling if they choose.

The National Pulse previously reported that CNN’s senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, called Smith’s decision to file the 165-page immunity brief just a month before the November presidential election an “unprincipled, norm-breaking” attempt to “chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects.”

show less
U.S. District Court Judge Tayna Chutkan has rejected a motion filed by President Donald J. Trump's legal team asking that the Biden-Harris Department of Justice's (DOJ) special counsel, Jack Smith, refrain from publicizing additional documents outlining his lawfare case against the Republican nominee public before the election. The ruling follows the unsealing of Smith's 165-page legal brief against Trump’s presidential immunity claim last week. show more
jack smith
October 4, 2024
William Upton
Election 2024
Lawfare

Even CNN Admits Jack Smith’s Latest Lawfare is Just Straight Up Election Interference.

The Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s (DOJ) special counsel, Jack Smith, is giving up on trying to jail President Donald J. Trump, retooling his prosecution to interfere in November’s election instead, according to one of CNN’s top legal commentators.

According to analyst Elie Honig, Smith’s 165-page legal brief against Trump’s presidential immunity claim filed in federal court earlier this week is an “unprincipled, norm-breaking” attempt to “chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects.”

“At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis,” Honig writes in a scathing essay for New York Magazine. The former assistant U.S. Attorney and corporate news legal commentator slams Smith’s highly politicized filing, writing: “‘But we need to know this stuff before we vote!’ is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice.”

Honig notes that Smith, who has largely led the Biden-Harris government lawfare campaign against Trump, twisted U.S. legal norms to ensure his presidential immunity brief—full of salacious and partisan accusations—would be made public prior to the presidential election. The CNN legal analyst contends that the DOJ special counsel has turned criminal procedure on its head by preemptively filing the brief—with the permission of far-left U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan—before Trump’s legal team made any motions on the immunity matter. Chutkan cleared the Smith legal brief despite acknowledging in court that it was “procedurally irregular.”

‘PREJUDICIAL LEGALLY & POLITICALLY.’

“Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool,” Honig observes, adding: “Yet Smith now uses grand jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines.”

He concludes, insinuating that Smith has likely traded the viability of his prosecution to directly interfere in the election instead: “You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure—and also members of the jury pool.”

show less
The Biden-Harris Department of Justice's (DOJ) special counsel, Jack Smith, is giving up on trying to jail President Donald J. Trump, retooling his prosecution to interfere in November's election instead, according to one of CNN's top legal commentators. show more
January 26, 2024
William Upton
Data
News

DATA: Potential D.C. Jurors Say ‘Trump Must Be Stopped At All Costs’ Suggesting Fair Trial Is Impossible.

A new poll suggests it will be nearly impossible for former President Donald Trump to receive a fair trial, free of partisan bias, in Washington, D.C. The survey, conducted from January 1st through the 8th by Triton Polling and Research, indicates there is likely a high level of political bias among the potential jury pool — especially towards individuals accused of participating in the January 6th, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Triton polled 422 “jury eligible” residents in the nation’s capital, with 27.5 percent of those surveyed saying those who participated in the January 6th protest are “insurrectionists.” An additional 13 percent said protestors were “criminals,” while 14.9 percent said they were “domestic terrorists,” and 11.6 percent called the participants “traitors.”

Three-quarters of those polled said they “strongly” agree that former President Donald Trump is to blame for the riot at the Capitol, with an additional 14.4 percent saying they “somewhat agree.” When asked if “anyone who participated in the events at the Capitol on January 6 should serve prison time,” 51.4 percent strongly agreed they should, and 17.4 percent somewhat agreed.

The poll also revealed that nearly 70 percent of the potential jury pool believes “Donald Trump and his supporters should be stopped at all costs.” Over 80 percent of those surveyed said they’d be willing to serve on the jury that could hear Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s January 6th prosecution of Trump. Among the potential jurors, 78.6 percent said they had a “very unfavorable” view of the former President, while just 12 percent said the same of Joe Biden.

Former President Trump is facing federal charges in Washington, D.C. alleging he attempted to obstruct an official proceeding of the U.S. government on January 6th, 2021. The trial, set to begin in early March, will likely be delayed as the courts mull a motion by Trump arguing his actions were protected by “presidential immunity.” A previous motion by Trump’s attorneys to move the trial to West Virginia was denied.

show less
A new poll suggests it will be nearly impossible for former President Donald Trump to receive a fair trial, free of partisan bias, in Washington, D.C. The survey, conducted from January 1st through the 8th by Triton Polling and Research, indicates there is likely a high level of political bias among the potential jury pool — especially towards individuals accused of participating in the January 6th, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. show more
December 22, 2023
William Upton
Breaking
News

TRUMP VICTORY: SCOTUS Denies Jack Smith Request to Expedite Presidential Immunity Case.

The United States Supreme Court has denied an expedited hearing regarding Donald’s ‘presidential immunity’ claim in relation to Jack Smith’s ongoing January 6th prosecution of the former President in Washington, D.C. The ruling comes as a major blow to special counsel Jack Smith who had asked the High Court to intervene so his prosecution could proceed to trial in early March. The Supreme Court did not issue any reasoning for its decision, nor did it indicate if there were any dissenting opinions – there is some speculation the ruling may have been unanimous.

Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys have argued Jack Smith’s prosecution in Washington, D.C. should be thrown out on the grounds his actions prior to the January 6th, 2021 riot were official acts of the chief executive to “ensure election integrity” and thus fall under presidential immunity. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to an expedited hearing on the matter set to begin on January 9th, 2024. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan previously ruled immunity protections did not apply to Trump’s actions questioning the integrity fo the 2020 presidential election.

Even if the appeals court panel rules against former President Trump, his legal team can then move for an en banc hearing before the full D.C. federal appellate court –a move which would likely push any trial well past the early March target set by Jack Smith. Only after an en banc hearing and subsequent ruling would the appeal then move to the Supreme Court – something that likely would not happen until the late summer of 2024.

If the trial date slips past March, the likelihood of any proceedings happening prior to the 2024 presidential election are slim.

show less
The United States Supreme Court has denied an expedited hearing regarding Donald's 'presidential immunity' claim in relation to Jack Smith's ongoing January 6th prosecution of the former President in Washington, D.C. The ruling comes as a major blow to special counsel Jack Smith who had asked the High Court to intervene so his prosecution could proceed to trial in early March. The Supreme Court did not issue any reasoning for its decision, nor did it indicate if there were any dissenting opinions – there is some speculation the ruling may have been unanimous. show more
jack smith
December 11, 2023
William Upton
News

Jack Smith Goes Straight To Supreme Court on Question of Presidential Immunity.

Department of Justice (DOJ) special prosecutor Jack Smith is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step-in and immediately resolve the question of presidential immunity raised by former President Donald Trump. Lawyers for Trump have asserted the Constitution affords the former President absolute immunity from prosecution which would render the DOJ’s January 6 case in Washington, D.C. null.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan – presiding over Smith’s January 6 prosecution – denied Trump’s presidential immunity argument at the beginning of December. Four days ago, the former President’s lawyers appealed Chutkan’s ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with an additional filing asking the appellate court order all further proceedings in the case paused until the immunity question was resolved.

The crux of Trump’s argument revolves around the absolute immunity from lawsuits to a sitting president granted by Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Whether a sitting or former President is immune from arrest or criminal prosecution for actions taken in office has not been, until now, legally tested. Trump’s lawyers argue his alleged statements regarding the 2020 federal election “unquestionably” fall under the scope of official duties – making them arguably immune from subsequent legal action.

In his Supreme Court filing, Smith counters Trump’s immunity claim, arguing: “The Constitution’s text, structure, and history lend no support to that novel claim. This Court has accorded civil immunity for a President’s actions… and the Executive Branch has long held the view that a sitting President cannot be indicted… But those principles cannot be extended to provide the absolute shield from criminal liability…”. He concludes: “Neither the separation of powers nor respondent’s acquittal in impeachment proceedings lifts him above the reach of federal criminal law.”

Smith’s filing does acknowledge Trump’s request to pause the trial proceedings, while the immunity question is resolved through appeals, is the correct procedure. However, due of the imminent presidential election, Smith argues he is justified in asking the Justices step in and resolve the question ahead of the appellate court – allowing the Washington, D.C.-based trial to move forward on May 4, 2024 as scheduled.

show less
Department of Justice (DOJ) special prosecutor Jack Smith is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step-in and immediately resolve the question of presidential immunity raised by former President Donald Trump. Lawyers for Trump have asserted the Constitution affords the former President absolute immunity from prosecution which would render the DOJ's January 6 case in Washington, D.C. null. show more
chutkan
November 28, 2023
Jack Montgomery
News
Politics

Judge Chutkan Blocks Trump’s Attempts to Subpoena Missing Jan 6 Committee Records.

Tanya Chutkan, the Jamaica-born federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution over January 6th, has blocked the former president’s legal teams attempts to subpoena “missing” Jan 6 Committee records.

The J6 Committee, staffed almost entirely by Democrats, failed to preserve or properly organize its records. Trump’s lawyers had moved to subpoena all of its supposed evidence, arguing the Justice Department relied on the committee to build much of its case against him.

Chutkan, however, has refused to allow this. She insists the “broad scope of the records that Defendant seeks, and his vague description of their potential relevance, resemble less ‘a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence’ than they do ‘a general ‘fishing expedition.'”

Chutkan comes from a family of “dangerous” Jamaican Marxists. She is also an alumnus of the law firm that represented the anti-Trump dossier progenitor firm Fusion GPS.

Trump’s team has asked Chutkan to recuse herself from the case. They cite comments she has made at previous Jan 6 trials, strongly implying she believes he is guilty. These requests have been denied.

She has also attempted to place a gag order on the 45th President to limit his ability to speak freely about his prosecution. Even the leftist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has blasted it as a violation of the First Amendment.

show less
Tanya Chutkan, the Jamaica-born federal judge overseeing Donald Trump's prosecution over January 6th, has blocked the former president's legal teams attempts to subpoena "missing" Jan 6 Committee records. show more
October 26, 2023
Jack Montgomery
Politics

Even The Anti-Trump ACLU Says DC Gag Order Violates First Amendment.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has, despite its longstanding opposition to Donald Trump, agreed a gag order imposed on him and his lawyers by Jan 6 judge Tanya Chutkan violates his First Amendment rights, by placing restrictions on his ability to speak that are “too broad and too vague.”

While usually more concerned with far-left activities such as suing small towns over Christmas decorations featuring Christian symbols in recent years, the ACLU has given a rare nod to its former goal of upholding free speech by filing an amicus brief in Washington, D.C. in defense of Trump’s rights. The brief argues the limits placed on the 45 President’s ability to comment on Chutkan, special prosecutor Jack Smith, and court staff abridge his right to speech, and the public’s right “to hear what he has to say.”

While feeling it necessary to allege without evidence that “[n]o modern-day President did more damage to civil liberties and civil rights than President Trump,” the leftist organization goes on to warn that “if we allow his free speech rights to be abridged… other unpopular voices – even ones we agree with – will also be silenced.”

show less
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has, despite its longstanding opposition to Donald Trump, agreed a gag order imposed on him and his lawyers by Jan 6 judge Tanya Chutkan violates his First Amendment rights, by placing restrictions on his ability to speak that are "too broad and too vague." show more