Trump asks Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself

Here is a link to the story as conveyed by news channel CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/politics/tanya-chutkan-trump-recusal-request/index.html

I found out on MSNBC TV that Judge Chutkan has given Jack Smith until Thursday to file his response regarding the motion by Trump.

I have a pretty strong opinion as to what Smith should do, so I suggest it here. Jack, I think you should respond with, "Her honor can rule on the motion as she sees fit. The position of the People on this motion is that of disinterest".

 

Not a bloody chance…the whining Orange Stain will be seeing quite a bit of this judge for some time to come…

His lawyers must be embarrassed to have to act as mouthpieces for this imbecile…

 

I reckon he wins this skimish. No matter which way I look at this, there is the very obvious perception of bias against Humpty because of those unnecessary comments.

The pragmatic line of least resistance, given I reckon he will win this anyway, is for her to voluntarily recuse as that closes one door of possible on going delaying appeals by Humpty. Surely she is not the only Judge in Georgia.

Link.

 

Disagree Bushy. Sentencing judges frequently make mention of co-defendants, or potential ones, in their sentencing statements. Additionally, several other judges have made similar statements at sentencing hearings for the Jan 6 traitors…hers are by no means unique.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...ral-judges-have-blamed-trump-for-january-6th/

 

It is not so much about her ability to sentence...the bias perception goes to her ensuring he gets a fair trial leading up to a verdict, given her relevant comments could be perceived as a predetermination of his guilt.

 

But here’s a serious question, which of her statements were not factually based on the cases she’s tried ?

 

It is not that her comments are not arguably factually based.

"“the people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man – not to the Constitution. … It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

She is clearly referring to Humpty, and the implication is that the free Humpty ought not to be. At least, that can be the perception. Perception is all that is required, not a fact of bias.

 

And most of those statements were problematic, because it singlehandedly spoke of an individual in reference to a case at a point in time in which the person was neither A: A defendant or B: A witness. It's wholly unacceptable, for the reason of the perception of bias.

You bring up co-defendants for example, those are listed. They are already participating in the trial. They are essentially fair game. But if judges start making comments about people not listed, people whose guilt or innocence had yet to be tried, they are guilty of making the same statements that would otherwise disqualify a juror.

Judges have the same standards as a juror, they are the ones 'presiding over'. If a judge ends up having less standards than jurors(while also being the one to have the power of issuing rulings in their court), then that's just a dangerous precedent for a court to set.

Of the 9 statements, only one of the statements was neutral enough as to not imply a guilt or innocent status to a person that wasn't on a docket. The other eight statements were damning and poor performance, by federal judges appointed in this country.

 

That doesn't make her statements any less disqualifying. She has publicly stated she believes Trump should be convicted and incarcerated. There are judges who haven't shown they cannot be impartial. Defendants are entitled to one of those judges. There's no chance she disqualifies herself because she's a partisan hack. But, this case will also be fought in the arena of public opinion and she will lose this fight there. Any decision she makes will be tainted by her past statements and her refusal to recuse herself. That will be the narrative.

 

The narrative and the truth. Neutrality is the holy grail of the judiciary. It's the standard that every judge should strive forward. All those 9 judges had to do, was be neutral. And they couldn't do it. They couldn't do their day job. Funny thing is, in non-Trump trials or non 1/6 trials, I bet those judges did maintain the proper neutrality.

But in this case, due to its unique circumstances, they couldn't restrain themselves.

 

Judge Chutkin is a DC judge, not a Georgia judge.

 

Care to link us to a reputable site that quotes the judge as saying Trump should be "convicted and incarcerated"?

 

IMHO, the ONLY reason she should or, would recuse herself is to avoid an appeal.

But, If, TRAITOR tRump is found guilty on any of the charges it’s obvious he will appeal no matter who the judge is. I think the judge knows this. So! My bet is she’s stays in the buggy.

TRAITOR tRump and his lawyers should quit playing games and get their trialshit together. Because Jack Smith is playing keepers and he’s starting out with more marbles.

 

I adore how absolutely anything he does enrages progressives.

 

I think that’s the main reason Republican politicians are floundering, instead of actual policy positions it has become just pissing off anyone not deemed loyal enough.

Thankfully polling is showing this likely won’t work in your favor

 

This isn't or has nothing to do with policy. This is just Trump demanding the right to have a judge whom isn't biased. Progressives pulled this story out of thin air and are maulding over it.

As for policy? Since everything absolutely sucks right now the easiest policy would be to do everything opposite to what you are currently doing right now. Lol.

As for polling? Looks to me that some have Trump ahead, and a few have Biden ahead. Biden ain't looking that great in the polls.

 

As a democrat, I can agree with this unfortunately. I'm not sure what polls supports cd8ed claims, but all the polling I've seen hasn't looked good for my democrat party!

 

Jack Smith will argue strongly that the the judge should not recuse herself. this is simply a delaying tactic. And given the ethics rules of the DOJ for inferior federal judges, nothing Trump said in the motion will be accepted. The judge does not decide guilt or innocence here, the jury does. The judge simply manages the trial. And so far, Judge Chutkan has been firm and stern on Trump, which Trump does not like, especially coming from a minority woman on the bench.

 

You are making an impression alright. Perhaps I should walk back from my suggesting the People's disinterest. I'll mull it over.

 

I think if we democrats want to maintain integrity through this process, she needs to recuse herself.

 

She complained during another trial that he was still walking the streets "free" despite her convicting people she believed were acting on his behalf. You can pick the source of your choosing.

 

The source for that was linked too in the damn opening post article...

 

Mostly agree with that.... Jack certainly has no stance on the judge herself, but he needs to start taking a stand on frivolous motions ASAP, because he's going to be seeing a lot of them in his immediate future...

 

No she is pointing to their motives.

And FTR, this is a former POTUS, and a former fame hound for the last 60+ years, so I dont think your going to find a person who doesnt know who he is, or have an opinion of him since he is that famous.

At the end of the day the FACTS will be what either convicts him, or exonerates him.

 

Na. It's hard to fault judges for stating the obvious when one is grounded in facts. One should also consider the context in that many Jan 6th defendants tried to say their actions were okay because the president asked them to do it. The judges responses were in response to that. And while there's an implication that maybe he should be charged, it's not overt enough to be sure of their opinion, and to the extent they have an opinion it could easily be preliminary and not closed to further facts.

The gist of her statements is basically that the Jan 6th defendant has been found guilty, and the fact that they believed they were following orders from somebody else who has not been charged does not exonerate them.

I don't think there's any winning with maga. They will cry foul for anything negative vs Trump no matter what Trump does. Trump is just fishing for a judge who will give him an unfair advantage or at least allow more delays. So for that reason, and because the allegation is without real merit, I think his request should be rejected.

This is false as far as I can tell from the statements cited.