Judge Tanya Chutkan said Thursday that a potential start date for Donald Trump’s election subversion trial is still “months” away.
That’s likely music to Trump’s ears, as the former president and his team have fought tooth and nail to have each of his criminal indictments pushed back to after the general election on Nov. 5.
Election Day is exactly two months away, but Chutkan’s latest comments suggested she doesn’t believe Trump’s trial will commence before then. She was adamant that politics would have no sway on the trial, but she did acknowledge the case’s national importance.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Let’s discuss what the sensitive time is,” she said. “I understand there’s an election pending. I have said before, and I will say again, that the election is not relevant here. This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule.”
Chutkan said she would release a schedule for the case “as soon as possible,” adding that set trial dates could be released as soon as later in the day.
Thursday was the first time federal prosecutors and Trump’s legal team had been inside Chutkan’s capital courtroom since last year. After riffing with prosecutors and defense attorneys, Chutkan formally arraigned Trump on a superseding indictment Thursday that matched the charges in his original indictment.
Trump did not attend Thursday’s hearing, but Politico reported that his attorneys confirmed he’d read the indictment and wanted to plead not guilty a second time.
John Lauro, a Trump attorney, asked that Chutkan not rush proceedings. The judge fired back that the myriad of delays that have already affected the case is proof she’s handling things in a timely manner.
“This case has been pending for over a year,” she said. “We’re hardly sprinting toward the finish line here.”
Things got a little chippy between Lauro and Chutkan at one point, with the judge clearly tired of hearing Trump’s team speak ad nauseam about the case’s national importance.
As Lauro began to stand up to speak at one point, Chutkan called out, “I don’t need anymore rhetoric on how serious or grave this is.”
Lauro shot back: “It’s not rhetoric. It’s called legal argument.”
