Posted BY: Jasmine | NwoReport

Judge Tanya Chutkan, appointed by President Obama, has denied a request to postpone the federal election-interference trial of Donald Trump until after the 2024 US election. The trial is now set to begin on March 4, 2024. The decision comes after a balancing act between the prosecutors’ push for a January 2 start date and Trump’s request to delay the trial to April 2026 due to the significant volume of evidence and the historic nature of the case. Trump is facing accusations of obstructing the peaceful power transfer to his successor, a unique situation in US history.

Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, emphasized the magnitude of the case and the need for proper representation. He asserted that this rapid trial timeline was unprecedented and that Trump’s liberty and life were on the line. Chutkan, a US District Court judge, has faced criticism for her perceived bias due to her previous associations and statements. She had worked at a law firm that represented Fusion GPS, the company linked to the Russia collusion allegations against former President Trump.

Trending: Mugshot of Donald Trump

Special counsel Jack Smith had charged Trump with four crimes, including conspiring to defraud the U.S. and obstructing an official proceeding, related to actions leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Trump’s supporters. Trump denied wrongdoing and accused prosecutors of targeting him to undermine his political aspirations.

Prosecutors acknowledged substantial discovery evidence amounting to 12.8 million pages, with a significant portion coming from Trump’s campaign, political action committee, and the US Secret Service. Despite the volume of evidence, the trial is proceeding acceleratedly. Critics, including Representative Matt Gaetz, have raised concerns about Judge Chutkan’s impartiality due to her extreme sentencing of January 6th defendants and perceived support for the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020. Gaetz’s resolution contends that Chutkan’s actions and statements violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and question her fitness for the role. Despite this controversy, the trial moves forward with implications beyond legal proceedings to touch on partisanship matters and the judiciary’s integrity.