Trump reiterates request that Chutkan recuse herself from his his Jan. 6 case

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: CBS

Former President Donald Trump's defense team filed papers Sunday night in further support of his request that Judge Tanya Chutkan recuse herself in the federal 2020 election conspiracy case case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. In doing so, Trump lawyers met the Sunday deadline set by Chutkan to formally respond to Smith's opposition to the request....

Trump's lawyers again argued that Chutkan has made disqualifying statements critical of Trump during her handling of the sentencing of two Jan. 6 defendants.

In their latest argument, submitted in D.C. federal court, Trump's defense argued, "These proceedings are indeed historic. The public interest is not in the perception of a rush to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge…"

Trump's attorneys have requested Chutkan's recusal in the former president's election interference case based on previous statements she made in two separate Capitol riot sentencing hearings. They highlighted her comment to one Capitol riot defendant in October 2022 that the violent attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election came from "blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day."

They argued that this statement suggests "an apparent prejudgment of guilt."

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-reiterates-request-that-chutkan-recuse-herself-from-his-his-jan-6-case/ar-AA1gS2uQ

[pfitz59]

1. He can choke on it

Delay! Delay! Dealy! All the shitbird knows.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. Trump files another argument seeking recusal of DC judge Tanya Chutkan from his case

TFG basically repeats most of the arguments made in first filing

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Here is a link to the filing
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.58.0.pdf

[EndlessWire]

6. Thank you for the link. n/t

[Skittles]

3. hahaha

a black female really getting on Trump's nerves

[Backseat Driver]

4. I'm sick and tired of his manipulative abuse of the citizens and court system(s) to stall action

of HIS precious right to a trial. We need to protect our rights from this consistent abuser of our country and his conspirators that attempted to destroy it in so many ways. Why, he's even intimated, if I parse more eloquently, that he confessed his malicious attempts to do so. It's time to put a FULL STOP on this indicted loser and former leader who has been criminally charged for bringing together ALL the domestic terrorists of 1/6. If he wants to protect his freedoms rather than his rights, he should STFU! He's been indicted after no less than a bipartisan congressional committee and an experienced investigative Special Prosecutor presented facts to a Grand Jury and a judge was selected. His lawyers know he hasn't got any defense against his charges! I've run out of patience; I've run out of watching him make a shitshow of his worst fears and mine. More delays MUST NOT HAPPEN! More insidious webs of words and deeds CANNOT HAPPEN! I've lost my patience with these sniveling manipulative abusers. For his own protection and ours, he needs to end his frivolous murderous campaign in a locked and solitary cell until the end of days - I can't think how best to see him and a complicit GOP/GQP party out of their misery covering for this monstrous individual's alleged deeds any longer. Nor can I hope for justice while that same bias persists in SCOTUS.

In the words of a 9/11 American victim of foreign terrorists who gave it all in an attempt to protect our Capitol and the democratic processes that sometimes take place there and as we contemplate the damage yet to be done by the GQP swine and their willfully ignorant, "Let's roll."

[chowder66]

11. Excellent rant!

He should be addressed as the former Pretender.

[Wuddles440]

15. THIS!!!

[Rhiannon12866]

5. This guy just can't take "no" for an answer - on anything!

[RevBrotherThomas]

18. And his legal strategy since the 80s bears that out...

Obfuscate, delay, bury the original lawsuit in a mountain of legal bullshit - that ALL unfortunately has to be sifted through like a litterbox.

[EndlessWire]

7. It's just not enough.

He's answering here because the Judge gave him a deadline for rebuttal. I can't see where he expanded the argument. I think that his interpretation of the "disqualifying statement" is only what he needs or wishes it to be.

If the defendant before her is using Trump as an excuse, then IMO her comments are part of the legitimate explanation for the defendant. They may not like it, but that comment can be taken both ways. It is just not defined to the extent that you can say it definitely means what they want it to mean. It is just a statement of fact, even to emphasize that the defendant can't rely on his position because Trump is still walking around.

"The core value at issue here is whether the public will accept these proceedings as legitimate; or instead view them as a politically motivated effort by the incumbent administration to take out its most significant political opponent in a presidential campaign—the opponent who, by the way, is not only free, but has a strong lead in the polls" (page 9).

IMO, this statement completely undermines everything they said in pages 1-8. In their haste to make the point that they consider this entire indictment as being election interference, they have inadvertently supported Judge Chutkan's remark. Can you see it? I wouldn't be surprised if Trump was looking over their shoulders guiding their document. Lauro was never impressive on the news shows, and he does not impress here, either.

If she recuses herself, I shall be so disappointed.

[ananda]

8. The defendant is NOT the president.

period

[Novara]

9. Somebody's gotta put a stop to his abuse of laws and the court system

And he keeps on losing!

Start fining him for a frivolous waste of the court's time.

Her statements were statements of fact, not opinion, not indicative of bias. And they were statements within the context of sentencing, used to support sentencing decisions. Can't see how facts used in sentencing others can be construed as bias.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. I don't see anything biased about her statements

They were following their leader. zilch there.

[onenote]

13. Not a "repetitive" filing.

It was a reply to the DOJ opposition, specifically authorized by the court, filed by the deadline set by the court. And it didn't merely repeat the arguments from the initial motion, but took on and sought to rebut DOJ's legal arguments, including DOJ's characterizations of the relevant statutory standard and the case law.

I think Chutkan will deny the motion, but this is was one of the more professionally-written (with certain exceptions) filings made by Trump's lawyers.

[chowder66]

19. Thanks for the clarification. I should have taken the time to understand it better.

[Irish_Dem]

14. This is becoming more about whether Chutkan is up to the job, not about Trump.

Everyone knows Trump is a ruthless narcissistic sociopath who will do anything to win.
He will destroy as many people as it takes to get what he wants. This is a given
and not a surprise.

It is Chutkin's job to keep everyone connected to the trial safe.
And to prevent a miscarriage of justice by letting someone out on bail
taint the proceedings.

So far she is not doing her job.

[onenote]

16. Nonsense.

She's doing her job extremely well.

[SpamWyzer]

17. Thank you.

The "experts" are always better at understanding the law than actual judges and lawyers it seems. Judge Chutkan is a badass. She is on top of this and will not be recusing herself for true statements that describe a situation accurately.

[AKwannabe]

20. Why doesn't he want cannon recused????

Wants Fani out
Wants Chutkan out
Wants prosecutor in NY case out?

Why NOT Cannon, hmmmmmm?

Oh never mind. We know.

[Quanto Magnus]

21. tRump should recuse himself

from the United States and never return.....

[prodigitalson]

22. we really mean it brief?