Trump Indictments are Theater

by Miles Mathis

First published August 3, 2023

How do I know? The easiest way is this:

Obama-Nominated Judge In Trump Case Is 'Toughest Punisher' Of J6 Rioters

That's a headline today from Zerohedge. DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan is the judge in this one, and this is what we are told about her:

"Chutkan has handed out tougher sentences than the [Justice Department] was seeking in seven cases, matched its requests in four others and sent all 11 riot defendants who have come before her behind bars," AP wrote of her last year.

"In the four cases in which prosecutors did not seek jail time, Chutkan gave terms ranging from 14 days to 45 days."

Except for one little problem. That is all a lie. There are no J6 rioters and no one is in jail or ever was. They are all military/intel actors, many of them from Air Force. I have already covered this in my long J6 paper, so we know this is all being staged. All those long terms in solitary confinement you keep hearing about are more Langley baloney. This is being scripted by the usual vaccine-damaged bozos in subbasement 9 at Langley, who haven't got a law degree among them. But they figure you don't either, so what the hey. Neatness has never counted at Langley, because they know they won't be factchecked. They own the mainstream media and know their audience can barely read, much less pull apart a story based on logic or known facts or, least of all, the law. But I have reminded those who can that these hearings, trials, and sentences never make any sense.

We are told Chutkan has already presided over 30 J6 trials in less than two years. Pretty amazing speed she has, especially since she is simultaneously juggling these fake Trump trials.

So we know already without further research that this Judge Chutkan is yet another Hollywood judge sitting above a dummy court. This is all being run just for the papers. Let's see what anomalies we can find in this one article at ZH. Well, let's see, we get one in the opening paragraph, where they admit Chutkan came out the law firm that included Hunter Biden. She was the attorney for Theranos. So huge red flags already. We are told she was confirmed by the Senate with a perfect vote, with no Republicans voting against her. So why was her cloture vote 54-40? Apparently 40 senators were unhappy enough with her testimony to vote against cloture, but not one of them voted against her? Makes no sense.

You know what also makes no sense? The charges. In the latest round of fakery, Trump is being charged with knowingly making false statements about an election, referring to his claims the election was stolen. So let me get this straight: questioning an election is now illegal? A candidate now has to concede defeat gracefully or he will be charged with felonies? Then what was the whole point of a concession speech, or concession? If it is a legal requirement that candidates bow to the initial results, then Congress needs to pass a law saying so, and we need to get rid of concession speeches, recounts, and lawsuits. But as of now, neither Congress nor anyone else has passed such a law. A candidate is allowed to question his own ballots, to call for recounts, to sue, and to refuse to concede. He would have to be, since it falls under the heading of FREE SPEECH! If you believe you have been cheated, you are allowed to say so. No one has to believe you, just as you don't have to believe the results. It is part of living in a FREE COUNTRY! Belief and thought cannot be coerced, not by the media, the government, or anyone else. This is a "thought police" case if ever there was one, and any real judge would throw it out of court with prejudice, as an assault upon the Constitution. She would bring the prosecutors up for malfeasance. Except that these aren't real prosecutors. Like the judge they are just actors in this mad play.

Here's another red flag: Chutkan's husband is given a Peter Krauthamer, also a judge in DC. Wikipedia has a short page on him, but the big computers have never heard of him. He doesn't come up at Intelius or Instantcheckmate. Never heard of him. So he is either a ghost or they are giving us the wrong name. Same thing we found with Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom the computers have never heard of. Tanya's mother Noelle is supposed to be a DC lawyer as well, still practicing at age 83. Sounds fishy. Her mother is listed as graduating from law school in 1988. She would have been 48 then. Instantcheckmate lists her, but with no maiden name and no link to her birth family, which is also strange. She has three middle initials: E, A, and T. The E is for Emily. We are told Tanya comes from Jamaica, but there is nothing about that on her page or her parents'. The family appears to be from Georgia. Also Kingston, Wisconsin, and Kingston, GA, but not Kingston, Jamaica. So you see the joke. Her father is named Winston Barrington Chutkan, another red flag. Even the name Chutkan is a red flag, since her father has also gone by Chautkin and that appears to be a variation of Chaitkin, which is Jewish. Think Anton Chaitkin, one of Laruoche's lieutenants. We could have predicted that coming in. The Barringtons are big in Jamaica, see for example reggae star Barrington Ainsworth Levy. I don't have to tell you what his surname indicates. But his given name links us to the Viscounts Barrington, who have ties to Jamaica. They are closely related to the Stuarts. The Barringtons were bankers, generals, and admirals during the settlement of Jamaica, and were also big slavers. So you see how it goes. See for example William Barrington, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of War during the American War of Independence. The Barringtons also settled in Canada, which could be why we see the Duchesneaus in the Chutkan lists at Intelius: this black lady judge also has close French Canadian relatives. I would assume her father is only half black, but since we aren't given a maiden name for her mother, we don't know about her. Tanya is also related to an Imran Chutkan, which is a suspicious first name, not being Jamaican or American. It is Pakistani, think Imran Khan. Imran Chutkan is 41, listed only in Miami. So what is our link to Pakistan here? A search on that pulls up something strange: Tanya Chutkan presided over a case involving Imran Awan in 2017. Awan has two birth years at Wiki, so something is up. He is both 42 and 43. And he is Pakistani.

In July 2017, Awan was arrested on federal bank fraud charges. During an 18-month investigation into alleged misconduct involving congressional computer equipment,[2] he was subject to conspiracy theories involving espionage.

I guess you saw the aces and eights there, the sign of a fake? Chutkan sentenced him to time served and released him. So all the money spent on that 18-month federal investigation was wasted, eh? More of your tax dollars at work. Awan was information director for Robert Ira Wexler, Jewish of course, US Representative for Florida. Wexler is the one caught by FOX News faking his residency in Florida. As a resident of Maryland, he shouldn't have been able to run from Florida, but it was all swept under the rug. Congress didn't care and let him slide, since most of them are doing something similar. At any rate, this strange name match begs the question: is Imran Awan related to or the same as Imran Chutkan? Remember, we just saw that Imran Chutkan is about the same age and is listed from Florida, same as Wexler. And if we search on Imran Awan at Instantcheckmate, we find he also has Miami on his list. In fact, Awan is listed twice, being both 42 and 50, with the same locations, aka Muhammad. Strange, because Wiki lists him as Shahid Imran Awan, not Muhammad. So someone is lying, or everyone.

So what is this Trump indictment really about? Other than hogging the headlines from real events, it is about getting you to police yourself, without any need for real police or real courts:

As of Friday, more than 50 people have been sentenced for federal crimes related to the insurrection. In at least 28 of those cases, prosecutors factored a defendant's social media posts into their requests for stricter sentences, according to an Associated Press review of court records.

That's what we find at the Chicago Tribune in Dec. 2021, reporting on these same cases. They not only want you to think you will be prosecuted for protesting election fraud, they want you to think what you say online can be used against you as evidence. It isn't true, since that would never happen in a real court. But it doesn't matter, because just reporting this will scare a lot of people off social media and the internet. It will silence a lot of people like me and my readers. Or that is the hope. It won't silence me because I know it is all a bluff. I know the Constitution is still in effect, so I can think and say what I wish almost without limit. I don't have to believe anything, least of all these court cases which aren't believable in the least. 

 Please go to mileswmathis to continua reading.

_________    

Didn't think you could be this fooled did you?

"Everything Appears To Be A Cover Up": Capitol Police Chief Challenged J6 Narrative In Never-Aired Tucker Carlson Interview

If the current "fake trial" conceptual fog is too thick due to Trump attachment syndrome, try this:

http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

Sure thing:

DC judge assigned to Trump Jan. 6 case labeled 'toughest punisher' in Capitol riot cases