Judge Fires Back At Trump Lawyers After They Demand Her Recusal

On Monday, Donald Trump's lawyers filed a motion to force Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself from the Trump trial due to the fact that she referenced "other people" who spurred on the Capitol Rioters in a court ruling a long time ago. Chutkan wasted no time firing back at Trump's legal team, granting them a hearing, but reminding them that they didn't follow the rules with their latest filing and next time she won't be so nice to them. Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

On Monday, Donald Trump's lawyers filed a motion with Judge Tanya Chut. Ken asking the judge, well, not really asking, but really demanding that Judge Chut Ken re recuse herself from being the judge presiding over the forthcoming trial for Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. And in their motion, they cited a couple different court rulings that Judge Chut Ken had issued with regard of course to Capitol rioters. And in those rulings, well one of 'em, and this is what they cited in their filing, they said, you know, this is what she wrote. Those voices, including the voice of the then president himself, had convinced persons such as Mr. Palmer that the election was fraudulent, that they must take action to stop the transition of the presidency. While many of the people who participated in the Capitol Riot will be going to prison, the architects of that horrific event will likely never be charged with any criminal defense.

Now, before I get into Judge Chut Ken's response, let's take a moment here, because what she said there was not untrue and what she said, there was also not an opinion. The Capitol Rioter, of course, in this particular case had argued that, Hey, yeah, I did it, but these other people, meaning Trump pushed me to do it. And the judge was like, Hey, that may be true, but I'm not gonna change your sentence because you say that these people convinced you to do that. That's still on you. And that's not untrue. Donald Trump is the one who convinced these people the election was fraudulent. He told them at the stop the steal rally to fight like hell to take your country back. So what she said was not inaccurate, and what she said was not an opinion. Those are the facts. And she also said that, that has no bearing on my ruling here.

So, okay, you want her to recuse herself over that. Judges are allowed, by the way, to kind of editorialize in their opinions that is 100% allowed. So she did not do anything whatsoever that would make her need to recuse herself. And in fact, legal experts have also pointed out that Trump likely missed the window to get Chuck Ken recused from the case. She's been the judge on this case for six weeks, folks, six weeks. They have filed other motions in front of her trying to get the, you know, push the trial back, do this, do that. They have been working with her just perfectly for six weeks. And then now that they're out of other options, they're like, uh, well you can't be the judge anymore. Yeah, that's not gonna fly. If you actually had a reason to object to her being the judge, it should have been filed immediately upon her selection. Not six weeks after the fact, which of course is why this will not be successful. But Chakin being the clever

Judge that she is issued a response the same day on Monday, and she kind of smacked him down a peg. First she wrote upon consideration of defendant's 50 motion for recusal, it is hereby ordered that the government shall file any opposition no later than September 14th, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the government's opposition. All other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Then she kinda sticks it to Trump's lawyers. She says, defense counsel is reminded of the requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed. C September 5th, 2023, second minute order, future motions that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. So basically what she's saying is like, Hey, um, I'll entertain your motion for recusal, but just so you know, there's actually a rule in this court that if you're gonna file a motion, you actually have to let the other side know before you file the motion, and you have to put in your motion whether or not the other side opposes it. I'm gonna let it slide this time, 'cause I'm being a little nice to you, but you do it again and I will immediately reject your motion no matter what that motion is for. Do you understand me?