Judge Blasts Trump As She Strikes Down His Request

Judge Tanya Chutkan has slapped down Donald Trump's request that she bar mentions of the Capitol Riot in court and in the indictment against him, and she did so in a beautiful way that put the former president in his place. In her ruling, Chutkan said that Trump himself has made some outrageous and factually inaccurate statements in recent years about the election, so it is only fair that the jury get to hear how those lies led to the events of that day. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this ruling.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Late last week, judge Tanya Chut Ken decided that she was not going to entertain Donald Trump's request from his legal team to pretty much bar mentions of the Capitol Riot during his January 6th trial. Now, Trump's lawyers had argued before the judge in a motion that they filed a, a little while ago that in the indictment there's a couple lines that, well, basically they cite this one specifically large and angry crowd, including many individuals whom Trump had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results violently attacked the capitol and halted the proceeding. They wanted that line stricken from court. And other mentions, of course of the Capitol riot itself, like, Hey, don't bring up this really horrible thing that everybody already knows happened, and everybody knows why it happened. Well, judge Chuck can finally issued her ruling late Friday, and she said, no, no, I'm not gonna strike that.

And there's two specific reasons why I'm not gonna strike what you call inflammatory language. The first one, judge Truken said, as she bashed Donald Trump was, your client is pretty much known for making inflammatory statements. So it's, you know, kind of a, i, I don't wanna say tit for tat, but it is like, Hey, your guy does it all the time. He does it about me, he's doing it about the court, he's doing it about the trials. So why can't we make inflammatory comments here in court? You don't get to strike that. The second reason, and this is of course, the big reason why she said she's not gonna strike it, is because you've cited no evidence to show that this will in fact result in jurors coming in with preconceived notions about your client. If you don't have evidence, I can't rule in your favor that this is a court of law.

Everything we do is based on evidence. Every decision I make has to be based on the evidence. And when you come to me with none of it, what do you expect me to do? So Chuck can, of course, made the right decision here, and it is worth mentioning. I mean, the whole reason we had a Capitol riot was because for, you know, a month and a half, Donald Trump and his little allies were feeding these people lies the same lies that caused Donald Trump to engage, allegedly in the fraud, to, you know, subvert the government to block actions of Congress, all of that. It is all related. You cannot separate all of these events because they all happened in unison and they all happened because of each other. So again, Chuck can made the right decision here as she has done repeatedly throughout all of these pretrial motions. I'm glad that she finally got this one, you know, kind of done with, it's been floating around out there, by the way, for well over a month. But it's the right decision and hopefully Trump understands that once he goes to court. You can't just say whatever the hell you want and get away with it. There are in fact consequences for your words.