As you read the nine-page motion filed by the Trump lawyers requesting DC Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself [pdf HERE], please keep in mind all judges in the DC District expected this. That’s why they sat in the back of the courtroom during the Trump indictment proceedings. {Go Deep}
“Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The public will reasonably and understandably question whether Judge Chutkan arrived at all of her decisions in this matter impartially, or in fulfillment of her prior negative statements regarding President Trump.”
The legal team with President Trump is asking Chutkan to direct the court clerk to randomly assign this case to another district judge. However, this is where the previous visible support for Chutkan by the entire district of judges comes into play. Beyond the prejudicial statements previously delivered by Judge Chutkan, which are quite extraordinary, it must be remembered the Chutkan came from Boies Schiller law firm.
While she worked for Boies Schiller, her firm represented Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS against congress. {Go Deep} Additionally, Boies Schiller was representing Hunter Biden in his legal defense. Chutkan is enmeshed in the original Russiagate storyline and the later developing Hunter Biden storyline, in addition to her activist work against the J6 defendants.
Team Trump is asking Chutkan to consider the recusal request on an expedited basis and not rule on any other pending motions until this issue is determined.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
Chutkan issued a brief order that gave the Justice Department three days to respond to Trump’s motion. Once the DOJ files that brief, Trump’s lawyers have three days to respond if they wish to do so.
“All other deadlines set by the court remain in effect,” the judge wrote in the one-paragraph order. “Defense counsel is reminded of the requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed.”
[…] An Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, Chutkan was randomly assigned to preside over Trump’s prosecution following his indictment on charges he engaged in a criminal scheme to remain in power following his defeat in the 2020 election. In one of her first moves overseeing the case, Chutkan scheduled Trump’s trial for March 2024, rejecting a request from his legal team to push off the proceeding until April 2026.
She came to the case with a record of handing down lengthy sentences on Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump isn’t charged with inciting the violence that day.
In their court filing Monday, Trump’s lawyers highlighted an October sentencing in which Chutkan said the Capitol attack was “nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government, the legally, lawfully, peacefully elected government, by individuals who were mad that their guy lost.”
“I see the videotapes. I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats they were wearing and the garb. And the people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man—not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this country; and not to the principles of democracy,” she added. “It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
Trump’s lawyers said the “inescapable” meaning of her statement was that “Trump is free, but should not be.” The former president’s defense team said Chutkan had previously blamed Trump for the Capitol attack during a sentencing in December 2021. (link)
