JUST IN: Judge Gives Trump A HUGE Legal Victory

The Obama-appointed judge in former President Donald Trump’s federal J6 case has acquiesced to the reality that no trial will occur before election day.

Washington, D.C. federal judge Tanya Chutkan on Thursday set a pretrial schedule that guarantees no trial will occur before Election Day on Tuesday, November 5th, according to the Western Journal. Her decision is in line with requests from a prosecutor with the team of special counsel Jack Smith who requested more time for the government to prepare its arguments in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling this summer. A final deadline before trial now sits on November 7th. The government must “complete all mandatory evidentiary disclosures” to the defense team by September 10th.

(VOTE: Are You Supporting TRUMP Or KAMALA In November?)

Thursday’s hearing was the first between prosecutors and Trump’s defense team since the high court’s ruling in July, which narrowed the scope of charges against Trump. Last week Smith filed a new indictment which was presented to a new grand jury and “reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” according to NPR. Attorneys for the former president are seeking to dismiss the case on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed, citing a litany of precedents indicating that the Department of Justice has not followed a particular procedure for appointing special prosecutors. They have until October 24th to file final arguments seeking dismissal.

In her ruling, Judge Chutkan wrote that the case must continue despite the potential for President Trump to dismiss it if he wins the election. “There needs to be some forward motion in this case, regardless of when an election is scheduled,” Chutkan said. The government must now present its final arguments before September 26th, and Trump’s team must respond by October 17th. The government’s reply brief is then due October 29th. Judge Chutkan said she would then determine whether additional pre-trial motions were necessary.

Legal observers have suggested that Smith’s case is already doomed if it goes to trial. Jim Trusty, the former chief of the DOJ’s arm to combat organized crime and gangs, said the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity for “official acts” specifically refers to how the introduction of “immunized” evidence can play a role in tainting a jury’s perception of a defendant. This is especially important considering defense arguments that some of Smith’s evidence against Trump should have been inadmissible. Speaking about the high court, Trusty said, “The opinion says not just that immunized information is not proper before the court at trial, but that it contaminates the grand jury process if you include that information in pursuing an indictment.”