Donald Trump's legal team made an argument in the latest hearing in the former president's criminal case involving Jan. 6 that one ex-prosecutor labeled "weird."
Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance spoke with those in the courtroom and read a transcript of the scheduling hearing, and concluded that Judge Tanya Chutkan's handling of the case was "reassuring" compared to that of Judge Aileen Cannon in Trump's criminal Espionage Act case, where Trump stood accused of unlawfully retaining classified documents from the White House.
"After months of watching Judge Aileen Cannon botch a simple, straightforward case, it was a relief to see Judge Tanya Chutkan in action today," Vance said Thursday night.
ALSO READ: Why Trump’s Arlington controversy is actually a crime
Vance added, "Today’s event was a scheduling conference, not a hearing to dispose of substantive matters, but the pace and ease with which Judge Chutkan navigated the issues was reassuring. It’s clear that in her mind, this is a case like any other, where a criminal defendant is entitled to all the due process the Constitution provides him with, but no special treatment because he’s a former president and a current candidate for the job."
Vance went on to note a "key exchange," during which Trump lawyer John Lauro, "trying to justify delaying any meaningful activity in the case until after the election to keep information about it away from the public, said, 'We’re talking about the presidency of the United States.'"
“I’m not talking about the presidency of the United States; I’m talking about a four-count criminal indictment,” Judge Chutkan responded, according to Vance.
Vance also said the discussion about the calendar was "revelatory" when it came to Trump's team's motives, which she said are to "delay, delay, delay."
"Here’s the oddity: Trump’s lawyers, who said they want to know more about the government’s case before they file their motion challenging it, objected to the government filing a brief telling them all about the government’s case," Vance wrote. "The government in essence was offering to give Trump even more discovery than the rules require them to, because they need to lay out their evidence so the Judge can evaluate the immunity issue. But Trump’s lawyers said they didn’t want that."
"Weird," the expert added.
