Not an attorney, but I'm going to hazard a guess that this is groundwork for an appeal. Lefties never recuse, so they can use this and her previous prejudicial comments as evidence at appeal. Because they aren't getting an unbiased jury in DC, anyway, no matter who the judge is.
this one is the worst one she been viciously going after / making examples of every Jan. 6th case, res regularly gives the defendants more time. more then the Biden DOJ asked for.. also made some bad comments online..
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), contending that this Court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned based on statements made during prior proceedings. Having carefully reviewed the motion, and in light of the applicable law and the record before this Court, the motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
The Defendant's motion primarily relies on the principle, as articulated in Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 (5th Cir. 1980), that justice must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial to outside observers. The Defendant suggests that the statements made by this Court during the sentencings of Palmer and Priola, and in particular regarding the events of January 6th and certain individuals involved, indicate a preformed opinion which might reasonably call into question the Court's impartiality in this case.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is whether a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114–15 (D.C. Cir. 2001). It is well established that prior judicial opinions or rulings in the course of legal proceedings do not ordinarily form a basis for recusal, especially when such opinions are derived from participation in judicial proceedings. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994).
III. ANALYSIS
The statements at issue, as argued by the Defendant, concern determinations of fact and law established in prior cases before this Court. As such, these are not mere personal opinions but legal determinations grounded in evidentiary proceedings. The events and actions surrounding January 6th are part of a substantial body of public and judicial record, making them established facts rather than speculative opinions.
The Defendant's reliance on the statements, notably on the assertion that this Court's remarks indicate a belief in a particular individual's culpability, misconstrues the nature of the statements made. Rather than indicating bias or prejudgment, these statements reflect the legal determinations made in the context of prior proceedings. This is consistent with the Court's role to make factual findings and legal conclusions based on the evidence before it. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554–56.
While the Defendant has correctly cited the importance of preserving both the reality and appearance of impartiality, it is also essential to recognize the distinction between a judge's personal beliefs and legal determinations based on established facts in prior proceedings. To recuse a judge based on every legal conclusion made during their tenure would be impractical and contrary to the established principles of our judicial system.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon thorough consideration of the Defendant's arguments and the standards governing recusal, this Court finds that the statements cited by the Defendant do not indicate that its impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Recusal is DENIED.
I do not understand how they could refuse "jury as your peers" . DC being as it is. They could only set judgment's over say antifa and even then they would just let them go as as fellow one of them. They do not care the the case will not survive an appeal they want him bumped off the ballet in time to fuck wit the lection at all costs.
It's basically a given that he has to request this. If he doesn't, they'll just use it as an excuse later. "If you thought they were corrupt, why didn't you ask for a recusal?". It would only serve as an excuse for them to try to legitimize the political persecution after the fact. Of course we know there's no way in hell the judge is going to recuse themselves, because the whole reason why they're overseeing it in the first place is to maliciously go after Trump. There's nothing natural about this process. It's all orchestrated.
There's no case, of course they need a radical leftist. They'll either recuse for appearances and assign a more snakey piece of shit, or refuse. There's no 3rd outcome.
If I was all powerful superhero, I would produce a TV show called The Full Circle People's Court and use the Supreme Court as the Jury and let the people judge by voting.
If I was an all powerful super hero, I'd establish New America. Everyone who isn't a pedo, rapist, murderer, communist, traitor, Democrat, from a (((specific))) country, or Rosie O'Donnell would be allowed in. Access can be taken away. The world is free to carry on, but I'd be the nuclear deterrent. Any bullshit shenanigans around the globe gets met with public corporal punishment and gets more severe with each infraction up to the death penalty -also made public and mandatory to watch above the age of 15 as Alex Jones reads the list of crimes. Alphabet agencies from the top down get a new home in gitmo or maybe the sun.
That's the play. If you can't get a fair trial in the venue, then you start smashing them in the mouth and playing by their rules.
We're at that point.
Not an attorney, but I'm going to hazard a guess that this is groundwork for an appeal. Lefties never recuse, so they can use this and her previous prejudicial comments as evidence at appeal. Because they aren't getting an unbiased jury in DC, anyway, no matter who the judge is.
The problem with such an appeal is that it would only get you a new kangaroo trial.
Not necessarily.
this one is the worst one she been viciously going after / making examples of every Jan. 6th case, res regularly gives the defendants more time. more then the Biden DOJ asked for.. also made some bad comments online..
This is how she's going to respond:
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), contending that this Court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned based on statements made during prior proceedings. Having carefully reviewed the motion, and in light of the applicable law and the record before this Court, the motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
The Defendant's motion primarily relies on the principle, as articulated in Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 (5th Cir. 1980), that justice must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial to outside observers. The Defendant suggests that the statements made by this Court during the sentencings of Palmer and Priola, and in particular regarding the events of January 6th and certain individuals involved, indicate a preformed opinion which might reasonably call into question the Court's impartiality in this case.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is whether a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114–15 (D.C. Cir. 2001). It is well established that prior judicial opinions or rulings in the course of legal proceedings do not ordinarily form a basis for recusal, especially when such opinions are derived from participation in judicial proceedings. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994).
III. ANALYSIS
The statements at issue, as argued by the Defendant, concern determinations of fact and law established in prior cases before this Court. As such, these are not mere personal opinions but legal determinations grounded in evidentiary proceedings. The events and actions surrounding January 6th are part of a substantial body of public and judicial record, making them established facts rather than speculative opinions.
The Defendant's reliance on the statements, notably on the assertion that this Court's remarks indicate a belief in a particular individual's culpability, misconstrues the nature of the statements made. Rather than indicating bias or prejudgment, these statements reflect the legal determinations made in the context of prior proceedings. This is consistent with the Court's role to make factual findings and legal conclusions based on the evidence before it. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554–56.
While the Defendant has correctly cited the importance of preserving both the reality and appearance of impartiality, it is also essential to recognize the distinction between a judge's personal beliefs and legal determinations based on established facts in prior proceedings. To recuse a judge based on every legal conclusion made during their tenure would be impractical and contrary to the established principles of our judicial system.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon thorough consideration of the Defendant's arguments and the standards governing recusal, this Court finds that the statements cited by the Defendant do not indicate that its impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Recusal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ___ day of _____, 2023
For the Jan6 defendants that blamed trump, not good. But getting her to agree? That might just Trump’s grounds for delay or appeal!
He needs a change of venue to Florida.
I do not understand how they could refuse "jury as your peers" . DC being as it is. They could only set judgment's over say antifa and even then they would just let them go as as fellow one of them. They do not care the the case will not survive an appeal they want him bumped off the ballet in time to fuck wit the lection at all costs.
It's basically a given that he has to request this. If he doesn't, they'll just use it as an excuse later. "If you thought they were corrupt, why didn't you ask for a recusal?". It would only serve as an excuse for them to try to legitimize the political persecution after the fact. Of course we know there's no way in hell the judge is going to recuse themselves, because the whole reason why they're overseeing it in the first place is to maliciously go after Trump. There's nothing natural about this process. It's all orchestrated.
I can hear the answer now -
“I will not. In fact, I find you in contempt!”
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/11/trump-jan-6-chutkan-trial
The more the Demoncrats attack Donald Trump, the more every citizen will see through the pure hate and recognise their country deserves better.
the more every citizen will BE AFRAID TO see through
An unbiased judge throws this case in the trash.
There's no case, of course they need a radical leftist. They'll either recuse for appearances and assign a more snakey piece of shit, or refuse. There's no 3rd outcome.
How dare they!
The problem is that there aren't many people left who are unbiased towards GEOTUS. People either love him, or hate him.
I thought the headline read - Trump tells the judge to go fuck herself
Why is this stickied? This was already stickied with more Context yesterday and there isn’t even a link. Its just a screenshot of an article.
It's OK to give the morning crew some Cliff's Notes while their coffee kicks in.
There will be no fair play.
Spoiler Alert🚨🚨: She won't. And D.C. doesn't care about appearing fair anymore. "What are you gonna do about it, peon?"
If I was all powerful superhero, I would produce a TV show called The Full Circle People's Court and use the Supreme Court as the Jury and let the people judge by voting.
If I was an all powerful super hero, I'd establish New America. Everyone who isn't a pedo, rapist, murderer, communist, traitor, Democrat, from a (((specific))) country, or Rosie O'Donnell would be allowed in. Access can be taken away. The world is free to carry on, but I'd be the nuclear deterrent. Any bullshit shenanigans around the globe gets met with public corporal punishment and gets more severe with each infraction up to the death penalty -also made public and mandatory to watch above the age of 15 as Alex Jones reads the list of crimes. Alphabet agencies from the top down get a new home in gitmo or maybe the sun.
Good
Response: “Ha ha! Fuck you Drumpfler!”