Trump attorneys met the deadline to respond to the DOJ’s brief asking Judge Tanya Chutkan to stay on the case
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump met the Sunday deadline of filing a response to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) opposition that the judge presiding over their case recuse herself.
Special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting a case against the former president, charging him with four counts of conspiracy and obstruction for his actions in challenging the 2020 election results. Presiding over the case in Washington, D.C., is Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is known for being a harsh sentencer in the several Jan. 6, 2021-related cases she has already ruled on.
Defense attorneys argued that Judge Chutkan has already made a presumption of President Trump’s guilt, based off a number of statements she made when sentencing other cases. The DOJ argued there was “no valid basis” for recusal, because all the statements were made during official judicial duties and, therefore, could not be constituted as bias.
Trump attorneys argue that the DOJ position is “ludicrous and contrary to the law.”
They noted the DOJ did not dispute that the judge made those statements, or that the statements referenced President Trump without naming him, or that one could interpret her statements “as clear prejudgment of guilt.”
“Instead, the prosecution argues that a judge may freely and publicly state that uncharged individuals—including individuals who may later appear before her—should be charged, so long as she does so in a judicial proceeding,” the reply reads.
Judge’s Statements
“Judge Chutkan’s statements point to the unmistakable conclusion that the appearance of prejudgment will infect every aspect of this case and cause the public to rightly question the very legitimacy of these historic proceedings,” the attorneys argued in the new reply.
The statements in question largely relate to comments Judge Chutkan made when sentencing Christine Priola, who entered the Capitol with a large sign and was later given 15 months in prison:
“This 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. It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
She made similar statements in another sentencing, stating that the defendant went to the Capitol “because his guy lost,” which attorneys pointed out referred to President Trump.
