Law and Order: The Post-Constitutional Episode
It is undeniable that the judiciary and juries in the federal courts in the District of Columbia are almost uniformly left-wing partisans, a key part of the post-constitutional era brought into being by former president Obama. I do not know how or whether this can be rectified, although I expect a resounding victory for Republicans in 2024 followed by a congressional reshaping of the jurisdiction of these courts and their staffing may be the only solution. If you are unaware of the seriousness of this, it’s because the press has almost uniformly failed to cover this fairly, and, indeed, has been full participants in the multiple hoaxes which provide cover for these juridical travesties. The local bar, sadly, seems to okay with this. While big firms rushed to defend Gitmo detainees, I am unaware of a single firm volunteering to help the almost 600 defendants rounded up by the Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District, Matthew Graves. Nor am I aware of a single local practitioner who has raised an alarm that due process is unavailable in the District for Republicans.
Judge Tanya Chutkan
When Donald Trump was inaugurated, the city erupted in flames, store windows were smashed, cars were hammered, and protestors attempted to tear down the fence around the White House. When George Floyd, a man with serious health problems, a long criminal record, and a history of drug abuse, died in custody, Black Lives Matter protests roiled cities with massive destructive protests. In D.C., without authorization, on her own, the mayor painted a major thoroughfare with a giant “Black Lives Matter” message.
One District Judge was offended by the disparate treatment given these rioters and the draconian measures against the J6 protestors, almost all of whom had only engaged in peacefully seeking contested election results be sent back to the respective states for investigation before the results were certified.
Judge Tanya Chutkan pointedly rejected her own colleague’s comparison between the Jan. 6 mob and the rioters who exploited the Black Lives Matter demonstrations last year.
“Some have compared what took place on Jan. 6 with other protests that took place throughout the country through the past year and have suggested that the Capitol rioters are being treated unfairly,” Chutkan said during a sentencing hearing. “I flatly disagree.”
Although she didn’t mention any names, it seemed unmistakable that Chutkan was responding -- nearly point by point -- to the analysis of Judge Trevor McFadden, who serves alongside her on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where more than 600 defendants are facing charges for their roles in the Capitol attack.
On Friday, McFadden said federal prosecutors had undercut themselves on Jan. 6 prosecutions by doing little to impose legal consequences for those who rioted during the racial-justice protests last year.
“I think the U.S. attorney would have more credibility if it was even-handed in its concern about riots and mobs in this city,” he said during another sentencing hearing, according to The Associated Press.
Judge Chutkan has handled a number of the J6 cases, and her prejudice shows.
In recent years, Chutkan has been using her power to hand out harsh sentences to January 6 defendants. She is known for punishing Trump supporters more severely than her peers on the federal bench.
This is evidence that Chutkan is biased and politically motivated. Many Americans are demanding that Chutkan recuse herself from the case.
“Four of the six cases where judges sentenced January 6 defendants to prison over federal prosecutors’ requests for lesser punitive measures happened in Chutkan’s courtroom,” the report said.
Politifact explained, “In one instance, Chutkan sentenced Matthew Mazzocco, a Texas man who pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating or picketing in the Capitol, to 45 days incarceration, 60 hours of community service and $500 restitution.”
Chutkan rejected the recommendation from prosecutors who asked that “he be sentenced to 3 months home detention, 36 months probation, 60 hours of community service and $500 restitution.”
“If Mr. Mazzocco walks away with probation and a slap on the wrist, that’s not going to deter anyone from trying what he did again,” Chutkan said at Mazzocco’s sentencing hearing. “It does not, in this Court’s opinion, indicate the severity, the gravity, of the offenses that he committed on January 6.”
During one of the sentencing for a January 6 defendant, Chutkan complained about the fact Trump “remains free to this day.”
“I see the videotapes,” the judge said. “I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats that they were wearing, and the garb.”
“And the people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty to one man, not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this county and not to the principles of democracy. It’s blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day,” she added.
She is the judge in the pending case here against Donald Trump.
Julie Kelly, almost singularly, has been covering the preliminary proceedings in this case and it is evident that Judge Chutkan has no interest in conducting a 
fair trial. The judge has set a March 4 trial
date (the day before Super Tuesday). This is a time frame that will be impossible for the defense to meet. For one thing, they’ve just been handed 12.8 million discovery documents by the prosecution, an amount of material to review and prepare a response to in a time frame which is grossly inadequate. “DOJ could not name a single case in DC District that went from indictment to trial in 5 months,” In fact, numerous J6 defendants have been confined to the DC jail without trial for over two years. “Chutkan keeps saying case won't go to trial in 2026 and grasping for reasons why. She continues to hammer Trump's lawyer for not reviewing possible evidence related to an indictment that didn't even exist.”
The Press and the Public Perception
How is it that so many people, apparently including those in the judiciary, have such a distorted view of Trump and his supporters? Scott Adams has an answer. They’ve repeatedly been hoodwinked by multiple Dem-Media Hoaxes:
Is there finally enough information to start explaining to Democrats what happened to them?
1. Watch the Phil Bump meltdown to learn how fake news is the norm.
2. Look at the J6 sentencing compared to BLM/Antifa riots.
3. Look at the Hoax Quiz, etc.
Apart from partisanship, there’s a remarkable lack of curiosity respecting Democrats and their conduct, as this astonishing interview of the Washington Post’s Phillip Bump reveals:
Could Bump expose himself any more than he did in that one-minute exchange? He’s presented with evidence that Joe Biden did receive financial benefits from his son’s dealings, and he actually answers that he “has no idea what that means.” I’m not a genius, but I’m pretty sure it means exactly what it says, i.e. that Hunter Biden was funneling money to his father. Bump plays dumb as if it’s some complex cipher that may never be broken.
He then tries to suggest that it’s “circumstantial evidence.” One, that’s still evidence, and two, is it really when it’s a direct admission? That’d be like saying a confession is “circumstantial evidence.” By the next part of the exchange, Dworman has Bump admitting that evidence does exist despite him writing piece after piece asserting the opposite.
Dworman goes on to ask Bump a simple question that any political observer should be able to answer, which is whether questions should be asked about the text message. Still, the Post columnist insists that he doesn’t know. It’s absurd and illuminating, showing just how shallow some of the biggest names in mainstream media are. These aren’t impressive people. These are weak partisans who hide behind the reputations of their outlets, never having to answer any real questions.
On the other hand, more and more of us are wising up to the Left’s game. With every new indictment, more Republican voters tend to view the latest as “more ‘politically motivated and without merit'” than the previous indictment.”
As for the major media, more and more off us have figured out the life cycle of media hoaxes -- how the intelligence community working with the media and Democrat-funded organizations create and launder fake news. What we see with our “lying eyes” is ever more believable than the dross the press is publishing.
Law and Order: The Post-Constitutional Episode - American Thinker
