Judge Tanya Chutkan

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2023

(Aug. 6, 2023) — Judge Tanya Chutkan of the Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the “randomly selected” – really? – jurist who will oversee the most recent indictment trial of Donald Trump, aka “45.”  That case, of course, involves the assertion that he conspired to overthrow the United States government and precipitated the chaotic events of Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol by having the gall to object to the results of the 2020 general election.  Scandalous!

While the Department of “Justice” [sic] prosecutor, Jack Smith, claims that he has 45 “dead to rights,” many other attorneys and legal scholars note that Smith’s “ham sandwich masquerading as a crime” is grounded in a fatal refusal to see President Trump’s words as being absolutely protected political speech, shielded by the bane of Democrats everywhere: the 1^st Amendment. 

Moreover, even if Trump were to be convicted – in a nearly 77% registered Democrat v. 5% registered GOP jury pool Washington, D.C.…, ya think…, really? – the Supreme Court would overturn the conviction based on prior precedent, at least if it adheres to the inscription chiseled into the granite over its entrance: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

But I digress.

The focus of this offering is on Judge Chutkan and the provisions of the “Code of Judicial Conduct” applicable to U.S. District Court Judges in Washington, D.C., including her.

Canon 1 of that code states: “A Judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” (Emphasis added)  In addition, Rule 1.2 under that Canon, entitled “Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary,” states: “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety* and the appearance of impropriety.” (Emphasis added) 

The asterisk references in the Rules relating to the judge’s “impartiality” and “personal knowledge” of facts in dispute concern the definition of those terms in the “Terminology” section of the Code and as used in the code sections and related comments.  There, for example, the terms are defined thusly: “‘Knowingly,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘known,’ and ‘knows’ mean actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” (Emphasis added)  As for the term “impartial” and its derivatives, it is defined thusly: “‘Impartial,’ ‘impartiality,’ and ‘impartially’ mean absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge.” (Emphasis added)

Comment 5 under Rule 1.2 regarding “improprieties” states: “Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.” (Emphasis added).

Canon 2, entitled “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently,” includes thereunder Rule 2.11, captioned “Disqualification.”  It states: “(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.” (Emphasis added). 

Notably, Rule 2.11 includes several “comments,” including that “[1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (6) apply…” and “[2] A judge’s obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.”  (Emphasis added)

These comments are important, because they confirm that if the judge himself – or as in Judge Chutkan’s case, herself – is internally aware, regardless of whether anyone else is aware, of a basis for self-disqualification – even if not listed and whether or not a motion to disqualify is filed – the judge is obliged, sua sponte, to disqualify and recuse.  Laudable…, in theory.

At present, it is not known whether Judge Chutkan has complied with the “suggestion” of comment #5 under the Rule, stating: “A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.” (Emphasis added).  The “weasel-word” should is not the same as the mandatory word “shall.”

We now know that, prior to becoming a judge, as a lawyer, Tanya Chutkan (1) worked at the D.C. law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, the same firm that employed Hunter (“does-this-bong-make-me-look-dumber-than-my-dad?”) Biden and the firm that lobbied for the Ukranian energy company, Burisma, where the ne’er-do-well crackhead sat on the board for $80+K per month; (2) made at least two donations in 2008 and 2009 to the political campaign of Barack Hussein Obama; and (3) was nominated to the D.C. bench by Barack Hussein Obama in 2014.

And now, (4), as a judge having earned the title of the toughest sentencing D.C. jurist in criminal trials of the so-called “January 6 Defendants,” she is quoted in the December 17, 2021 sentencing before her of one Robert Palmer: “He [i.e., President Trump] did not go to the United States Capitol out of any love for our country. … He went for one man.” (Emphasis added)

Recall that on January 6, 2021, Donald Trump was still the President of the United States of America…, and he was being accused by Judge Chutkan at Palmer’s sentencing – the same judge now overseeing the trial of Jack Smith’s ham sandwich prosecution against him – as having no “love for our country…,” but instead purportedly and selfishly acting only “for one man…,” tacitly implying: Donald Trump.  If this judicial slander does not shriek “bias” and “prejudice” – let alone confirm the “appearance of impropriety” – nothing does.

If this is the pinnacle of judicial “independence,” “integrity” and “impartiality” in the District of Columbia, then the phrase “equal justice under law” – and for that matter the rest of the D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct – has lost all meaning.  The spectacle will have devolved into either a 21^st Century Star Chamber proceeding or a reprise of the Third Reich’s Volksgerichtshof.  Stated otherwise in the vernacular, it would become a common “kangaroo court.”  

Against this undisputed factual backdrop, no “reasonable mind” (thereby excluding all radical and most “moderate” Democrats) could arrive at any conclusion other than that Judge Chutkan is hopelessly and irredeemably actually conflicted and compromised. 

Moreover, at absolute minimum, by failing to acknowledge her conflicted status as presenting the essence of an appearance of impropriety under the Code governing her behavior and by failing to act on her own volition and sense of “judicial integrity” to self-disqualify and recuse, she is confirming – beyond any doubt, let alone a “reasonable” one – that 45 will have no chance of a fair trial if it is conducted before her or, likely, before any District Court judge in D.C.

Accordingly, not only should Judge Chutkan self-disqualify, she should herself, sua sponte, recommend to the presiding judge of the court, Chief Judge James Boasberg, that a new judge and a change of venue to a court and locale outside of the District of Columbia be ordered.  This, of course, will never happen, because that would telegraph an objective to accord 45 a fair trial. 

And it goes without saying that such a “fair trial” goal – being exactly contrary to what the anti-Trump narrative dictates – cannot be tolerated.  Move along… nothing to see here…. let the keelhauling begin.  Tell me again why the Democrats and their apparatchiks throughout D.C. have not forfeited any and all claims of competency or character to govern a free people in a constitutional republic.

I’ll wait.