Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a motion from former President Trump asking her to recuse herself from overseeing his prosecution on charges related to his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

While writing that recusal motions served a vital purpose, “justice also demands that judges not recuse without cause,” she wrote, pointing to a prior court decision noting that recusal motions can be “a procedural weapon to harass opponents and delay proceedings.”

“Motions for recusal could also be wrongfully deployed as a form of ‘judge shopping,’” Chutkan wrote.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    Chutkan also noted she had never made any comments on Trump’s culpability — noting it was his own attorneys who leaped to that conclusion.

    “The court expressly declined to state who, if anyone, it thought should still face charges. It is the defense, not the court, who has assumed that the Defendant belongs in that undefined group.", she wrote.

    An excellent own-goal, I rate it Four Seasons out of 4.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The court expressly declined to state who, if anyone, it thought should still face charges. It is the defense, not the court, who has assumed that the Defendant belongs in that undefined group,” she wrote.

    This was a nice touch. “You think I meant you? Is that a confession?”

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Can I get the Trump Supporting Activist that Rittenhouse got?.. please?” - Trump

    I fib. Trump would never say please.

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to jail. If the crooked shits in the supreme Court don’t have to recuse themselves from obvious conflicts of interest while those same interests service them from both ends then Trump can go fuck himself in his fetid greased up hemroid infested anus.

    Traitorous bastard.

    • laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny side note: I believe going to jail is considered a plus in competitive monopoly since while in jail you don’t have to pay rent to anyone, but still collect rent.

    • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      noting that recusal motions can be “a procedural weapon to harass opponents and delay proceedings.”

      I believe that’s lawyer for “get bent”

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m actually surprised she gave it as much deference as she did. She could have denied the motion without considering it at all for not being timely. I’m glad she gave a thorough justification, but it’s not like Trump supporters won’t just claim she didn’t. She could have written, “Too late, eat shit” on a damp cocktail napkin and it would have been just as effective.

        • mateomaui@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not surprised, did you see that takedown from Smith regarding all the reasons why she shouldn’t recuse? I bet she knew something of that caliber was coming from him and was just waiting for him to deliver all the slamdunk justifications for “no.”

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any judge that Trump would find ‘not biased’ are likely to be even worse- Sure, she’s a democrat. but trump would insist on a republican. Probably one he directly appointed.

    Given the insane amount of scrutiny… it’s really not going to matter anyhow.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everything associated with that cowardly piece of shit sleazeball turns into an absolute shit-show. How on earth did half of America get so fucking stupid?

    • AssPennies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They (his supporters, some at all ranks) knew he was a lying, cheating, fraudulent, uncouth, and dishonorable piece of shit.

      They also knew he would continue being the same piece of shit if/when he got into office, unapologetically cheating any way he could to get his way.

      In fact, I think that’s exactly why his supporters supported him. To hell with the law and democracy, gotta stick it to the dems.

      With ever looming shutdowns now being threatened by an extremist right faction of idiots, I wonder if the gop masters are finally now realizing the chickens have come home to roost. The hate and idiocy stoked to get support for extremism is now going to affect the bottom line of billionaires (the US’s credit rating is about to get cut, and being unstable is not good for business).

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a motion from former President Trump asking her to recuse herself from overseeing his prosecution on charges related to his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

    Chutaken’s decision comes after a Sept. 11 request from Trump asking her to step aside from the case, noting comments she had made while presiding over the sentencing hearings of two Jan. 6 defendants.

    The ruling, however, argues that Trump’s legal team took her out of context in singling out a few comments made in response to arguments from prior defendants — including those blaming the “architects” of the riot — noting that she has an obligation to address each point for the record.

    “The defense interprets the court’s verbal reiteration of Palmer and Priola’s arguments about their relative culpability as “suggest[ing]” a secret “core view” about Defendant’s criminality….That inferential leap is not reasonable in light of the relevant facts, record, and law,” Chutkan writes.

    Here are the two passages Chutkan includes in her decision, offering fuller context on the remarks singled out by Trump’s team, which are italicized.

    “Instead, it was fulfilling its duty to expressly evaluate the defendants’ arguments that their sentences should be reduced because other individuals whom they believed were associated with the events of January 6 had not been prosecuted.”


    The original article contains 589 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!