Trump’s Judge in Election-Interference Case Refuses to Recuse Herself

The federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's election-interference case declined to recuse herself in a lengthy ruling Wednesday defending her statements in other Jan. 6-related cases.

"Based on its review of the law, facts, and record, the court concludes
that a reasonable observer would not doubt its ability to uphold that promise in this case," U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a 20-page ruling.

Trump argued that the judge would appear to be a biased based on her remarks in two other cases involving convicted Jan. 6 rioters who blamed the former president for inspiring their actions.

When sentencing ex-Ohio school employee Christine Priola, Chutkan criticized the rioter for her “blind loyalty” to “one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” Trump's attorney John Lauro argued that this showed Chutkan clamoring to put the former president behind bars before he even landed in his courtroom.

But Chutkan on Wednesday wrote that she said no such thing.

"The court did state that the former President was free at the time of Priola’s sentence—an undisputed fact upon which Priola had relied for her mitigation argument—but it went no further," the judge wrote. "To extrapolate an announcement of Defendant’s guilt from the court’s silence is to adopt a 'hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious' perspective rather than a reasonable one."

Trump offered a similar portrayal of Chutkan's remarks to Robert Scott Palmer, who assaulted police on Jan. 6.

She told Palmer that he "made a very good point" when he said that those "who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged" — before adding the disclaimer: "This is not the court's position."

Chutkan notes that she ultimately shut down Priola and Palmer's passing of the buck.

"While the court discussed Palmer and Priola’s arguments that they should receive a lower sentence because other people had not been prosecuted, it ultimately rejected those arguments—declining to assign culpability to anyone else," she noted. "Those decisions undercut any notion that the court, in carrying out its sentencing duties with regard to Palmer and Priola, was pre-judging the Defendant’s guilt in this case."

Trump previously tried, and failed, to request the recusal of the judge presiding over his criminal hush-money case in New York: Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan.

Federal judges have the sole discretion to decide whether or not they should recuse themselves in the first instance when criminal defendants try to oust them. Those decisions cannot be directly appealed, except through a procedure known as a writ of mandamus, which establishes a high bar for extraordinary relief.

Trump's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and it remains unclear whether the former president's legal team will pursue an appeal. Legal experts recently told The Messenger that any such effort would have long odds.

The D.C. Circuit, the appellate court that would review the decision, refused to oust senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who suggested that Trump's ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn committed "treason."

“Arguably, you sold your country out. . . . I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense," Sullivan thundered in late 2018.

Chutkan quoted that remark, and the appellate court's view of it, in her 20-page memorandum opinion and order, but the judge cited another citation that she found more historically poignant: the Watergate-era case of U.S. v. Haldeman.

"In that case, the Circuit reviewed a recusal motion against District Judge Sirica, filed by defendants who were being prosecuted for their participation in the Watergate conspiracy," Chutkan noted, adding that this case also involved the judge's comments in related cases.

"In particular, Judge Sirica had, during those earlier proceedings, 'expressed a belief that criminal liability extended beyond the seven persons there charged,' and had even 'suggested persons whom the prosecutors might consider calling before the grand jury investigating ‘Watergate,’” the ruling states.

If anything, Chutkan said, she was more prudent than her Watergate-era predecessor on the District of D.C. bench.

"This court said even less in Palmer and Priola than Judge Sirica had in the prior Watergate matters," she wrote. "It specifically withheld judgment on whether other people should be charged for conduct related to January 6, and it did not recommend that the government investigate or charge any other individuals. Thus, there is even less reason for this court to recuse."