Judge Torches Trump's Legal Team In Decision To NOT Recuse Herself

Judge Tanya Chutkan finally issued a ruling on a motion filed by Donald Trump's legal team where they demanded that she recuse herself from the case. And Judge Chutkan made it very clear: She isn't going anywhere. Trump's team had claimed that previous rulings by the judge showed that she couldn't be impartial towards Trump, but those arguments were dead on arrival and were just a delay tactic by Trump's team. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Judge Tanya Chut. Ken delivered a scathing ruling against Donald Trump and his legal team this week when she announced that she would not in fact be recusing herself from the trial as Donald Trump's legal team had requested she do. But in her decision that she handed down this week saying, I'm not gonna recuse myself, she also took a couple of shots at Donald Trump's lawyers for effectively making up and taking out of context things that she had said in previous rulings. So here's what happened. Here's the backstory on this. You had Judge Chuck and who was overseeing a great number of the Capitol Rioter cases. And in a couple of those cases you have had defendants who have gone before Judge Chut and said, yeah, judge, I did these things, but I'm not the one who started the riot. Right? That was the, the Trump guy that was other people at the stop the steal rally.

They kind of pushed me into doing this and therefore I should not be guilty. It was part of their legal defense. And yes, that is pertinent here. And here is what Judge Chut. Ken wrote in her decision about the statement she had made in those rulings where she said, Hey, maybe, maybe there was another party that you know caused this, but that party's not in my courtroom right now. I'm not ruling on whether that party is guilty or innocent. I'm ruling on whether you are guilty or innocent. And so here's my ruling. So that's effectively what she said in those rulings. She didn't call Trump out by name even though the defendants did. She said maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. I don't know. That's not in my court, so I'm not gonna decide. But she never actually issued an opinion about whether or not anyone outside of the people in her courtroom were culpable for those events.

So here's what she wrote in her ruling this week saying she was not gonna recuse herself. The defense interprets the court's verbal reiteration of Palmer ANDA's arguments. Those are the defendants about their relative culpability as suggesting a secret core view about defendant's criminality. That inferential leap is not reasonable in light of the relevant facts, records, and law. The court was legally bound to not only privately consider those arguments, but also to publicly assess them. I mean, after all, she had to determine, based on their legal arguments in court, whether what they were saying is accurate or not. So she had to address it in the ruling. That's what she had to explain to Trump's lawyers like, listen, you may not have been happy that I did it, but because they used it as part of their, you know, claim of innocence. I had to address it in my sentencing memos and in decisions handed down by the court. But then she continued, the court expressly declined to state who, if anyone it thought should still face charges.

It is the defense, not the court who assumed that the defendant belongs in that undefined group. So here's where she starts taking shots at him. She's like, I never said Trump. And yet you look at this and you assume that these people we're talking about Trump, even if he wasn't mentioned.