Tanya Chutkan Finally Gets the Trump Case Back

/30 Comments/in , /by

SCOTUS finally remanded its immunity decision to the DC Circuit and the DC Circuit has, in turn, remanded it back to Judge Tanya Chutkan.

So Trump will finally have to deal with his actions on January 6.

As Brandi Buchman noted, Trump will have to file his appeal of the E Jean Carroll verdict by August 14.

In other scheduling news, Judge Noreika has scheduled the Hunter Biden sentencing for November 13 — much later than it had to be, delaying any of the appeals until such time that the President will have to be considering pardoning his son, if he plans to do that. She has yet to rule on Hunter’s Rule 29 motions, but I guess we know how she’ll rule.

Hunter’s tax case is still scheduled for September, and prosecutors continue to insist they can introduce allegations of influence peddling that have nothing to do with his alleged tax evasion and non-payment.

 

image_print
30 replies
    • bie phiephus says:

      Biden also said he wouldn’t bow out of the race for reelection. Now that he has sacrificed his personal ambition for the good of the country, I for one wouldn’t blame him if he changed his position on pardoning his son.

      • wa_rickf says:

        Agreed. After all, slimy Roger Stone got a pardon for doing a lot worse.

        Joe pardoning Hunter would be a huge eff-you to the Republicans. I hope that Joe does it.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          Convict-1 needed to keep Roger silent, but IIRC there are still things that Roger could be prosecuted for that were not part of the pardon.

          Stone is not going to stop being who he is and while that means he’ll be back on DoJ’s radar soon I must wonder why he’s not been visible during the campaign.

  3. Clare Kelly says:

    Marcy wrote:
    “In other scheduling news, Judge Noreika has scheduled the Hunter Biden sentencing for November 13 — much later than it had to be, delaying any of the appeals until such time that the President will have to be considering pardoning his son, if he plans to do that”

    It seems to me that a President Harris pardon would not be as fraught.

    As a former AG, she will be fully aware of the injustice aspects of his prosecution.

    Although there is much to run its course, that thought only just occurred to me.

    • dogshelpgod says:

      Biden wouldn’t be the first President to change his mind and I hope he does, unless Hunter – unlikely – gets a very lenient sentence. There’s plenty of precedence for very questionable pardons (Ford, Clinton and of course Trump.) And I don’t think this would be a questionable pardon, only problem is that Biden said he wouldn’t.
      I’m not sure it would be a good start for Kamala, but if Biden doesn’t pardon Hunter or commute his sentence, I hope she does, if his appeal(s) are unsuccessful.

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      That would be an awfully large albatross to hang around her neck at the beginning of a Presidential term that will be under fire from the beginning.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        It doesn’t matter, republicans are going to be screaming at everything she does and since she’s not the one that promised not to do it, just go for it. It’s so far from the next election that it’s not going to affect the next election.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        I don’t think Harris would, but Biden will since the sentencing is after the election but before the inauguration.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          Biden said he wouldn’t pardon his son. But I don’t think he said anything about commuting the sentence.

        • dopefish says:

          Biden’s problem is that he’s too nice.

          He should wait until after the election, then pardon Hunter for “all offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in”.

          He should announce it by saying “I changed my mind, I decided to pardon my son because he deserves a second chance. If Trump can pardon sleazeballs like Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, then I can pardon my only surviving son.”

  4. I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

    I’m not familiar with Norieka’s sentencing proclivities, but I’m very familiar with how Scarsi sentences in tax cases. If HB is convicted in Scarsi’s courtroom, expect a sentence of at least 18-24 months. That is without taking into account the conviction in Norieka’s court, which will bump up the recommended sentence under the sentencing guidelines. I have nothing good to say about Scarsi.

    If there is a conviction in his court, Scarsi may set sentencing for after the inauguration date next year. If Joe Biden can commute the sentence of HB prior the actual sentencing by Scarsi (a question I don’t have the answer to at the moment), he should do so (assuming he doesn’t pardon HB outright).

    Joe Biden might also commute the sentence imposed by Norieka instead of issuing a pardon, which I think will allow HB to appeal his conviction.

  5. Matt Foley says:

    I had a dream that Biden not pardoning Hunter would shame Trump into not pardoning himself and other MAGA criminals. Then I woke up.

  6. DesertDave says:

    I wonder how it would go over if Biden issued pardons for some of the crimes committed by Ivanka, Jared, Eric, and Jr. and also added Hunter to the mix…might even help to put some focus on details of the Trump family crimes that the public and the press have forgotten and/or ignored.

  7. Vinniegambone says:

    OT, but important.
    What do we make of the Rolling Stone article about the election law changes and 70 election deniers openly placed to not certify election results if Trump don’t win ?

    Looking like he won’t. Hoping EW can talk me off the ledge. Thanks

    • Attygmgm says:

      That news concerned me, too, and yesterday I read an article by Marc Elias, he of considerable election law cred, outlining the various ways states and courts can take over or compel or impose certification. I will see if I can find a link.

    • Attygmgm says:

      It’s from his blog Democracy Docket, and my efforts to link it failed, but here’s the bottom line excerpt:

      “Each state has specific statutes that outline a process to follow if a local official won’t certify an election.”

    • Fancy Chicken says:

      Well, what gives me a glimmer of hope is that Trump is entirely predictable and has a limited playbook just like he says the same thing over and over.

      People like Elias see this and know we have to get out front of whatever we know Trump’s going to do. While Dems don’t have the same build out on attorneys to fight election lawsuits, attorneys general and other officials and lawyers are trying to game out how it might look if deniers deny and are already drafting documents and such now.

      What Dems and Independents need to do is volunteer to work the polls and be poll watchers in numbers similar to the MAGATs who have a hair trigger about votes being “rigged” and could possibly alter voting machines or ballots or harass POCs voting.

      It’s gonna happen, but I think we’ll be much more prepared to fight it.

    • Matt Foley says:

      Notice how quiet the MAGAs have gotten over the 2000 Mules bombshell.
      https://apnews.com/article/2000-mules-film-apology-f1c2de96f17e72241761b4e6deaee5cb

      I have not heard a single MAGA acknowledge that Biden won fair and square. They are pretending that they’ve put 2020 behind them and are now focused on “election integrity”. Notice how they flipflopped and are now encouraging vote by mail. My opinion is that their “election integrity” is just a facade to give them cover so they themselves can try to fake ballots in 2024. Because:

      If Biden did it then so can we
      The ends justifies the means
      By any means necessary
      Trump is ordained by God

      The lone Repub on my county election board is making a big show of asking for cameras at all drop boxes. All because a paranoid MAGA was watching one dropoff box and saw a total of around 20 ballots being dropped off by a couple of “mules”. Never mind that the ballots were in sealed envelopes with multiple verifications of authenticity. Never mind that one person dropping off multiple ballots doesn’t affect the ballots. Never mind that it did not change the results of the election.

      • pluralist says:

        I’ve thought of a lot of possible explanations for the reversal on mail-in ballots and while many explanations have excellent snark potential, the spaghetti strand that really sticks is: they expect support for Trump to fade as the election date nears.

      • P J Evans says:

        The two nearest drop boxes to me are on major streets. One is in front of a branch library, next to a bus stop. The other is between the sidewalk and a small parking area in a public park. They’re locked, ballots are picked up daily, and they only open about enough for two ballots at a time.

  9. EatenByGrues says:

    I’m assuming that any appeals, of either the gun case or the tax case should it also produce a conviction, will extend beyond not only the election but the incoming administration. Assuming it’s Harris–is there any reason that, since the defendant is no longer the son of the President of the United States, that Harris’ AG can’t simply dell David Weiss to get lost, and return the case to line DOJ prosecutors, for consideration of the appeals?

    And if said line prosecutors were to go to Judge Noreika’s courtroom–or to the appeals court–and say “never mind–this was a malicious prosecution that outside the bounds of normal DOJ guidelines and is a case that the State no longer wishes to pursue”–what then? Would this be a Roger Stone case in reverse (where the judge disregards the State’s attempt to abandon a previously-obtained conviction?)

Comments are closed.