The ruling is the first substantive order after a landmark supreme court opinion last month that conferred broad immunity for former presidents

A federal judge presiding over the election subversion case against Donald Trump has rejected efforts from his legal team to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the former president was prosecuted for vindictive and political purposes.

The ruling from US district judge Tanya Chutkan is the first substantive order since the case was returned to her on Friday, following a landmark supreme court opinion last month that conferred broad immunity for former presidents and narrowed special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump.

In their motion to dismiss the indictment, defence lawyers argued that Trump was mistreated because he was prosecuted even though others who have challenged election results have avoided criminal charges.

But Chutkan rejected both arguments, saying Trump was not charged simply for challenging election results but instead for “knowingly making false statements in furtherance of criminal conspiracies and for obstruction of election certification proceedings.”

  • @[email protected]
    71•1 month ago

    In their motion to dismiss the indictment, defence lawyers argued that Trump was mistreated because he was prosecuted even though others who have challenged election results have avoided criminal charges.

    So in Trump’s world if not all are charged, no one should be? This is a school book example of a broken sense of justice and a slimy maggot trying to slither his way out of a problematic situation he created himself.

    Dude, most of us had no problem staying away from trying to steal an election. If you did the crime, be prepared to do the time you whiny little ass carrot.

    • A Phlaming Phoenix
      3•1 month ago

      Still, in some of these cases (like the Georgia RICO case), others have been charged and even plead guilty. This is a shit argument all around.

  • Flying Squid
    50•1 month ago

    I was so ready to post a Riker that I didn’t notice someone already posted this story and also posted it. So I deleted my post and I am Rikering in here.

  • kn0wmad1cEnglish
    48•1 month ago

    But Chutkan rejected both arguments, saying Trump was not charged simply for challenging election results but instead for “knowingly making false statements in furtherance of criminal conspiracies and for obstruction of election certification proceedings.”

    Just last night he falsely claimed that he won Georgia twice.