Politically biased Judge presiding over Trump Jan 6th trial tells hearing there will be no politics in the court – turns out she has imposed her own politics in the court many times
From here:
“U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan repeatedly warned the former president’s lawyers that politics would not be tolerated in her courtroom.
“The fact that [Trump is] running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan said during the August 11 hearing. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.”
Sounds good! A one tiered justice system under which all were equal under the law! Who could ask for more?
Hold on though.
“A review of thousands of pages of hearing transcripts reveal that Chutkan has repeatedly expressed strong and settled opinions about the issues at the heart of United States v. Donald Trump – the criminal case she is now presiding over.
These include her public assertions that the 2020 election was beyond reproach, that the Jan. 6 protests were orchestrated by Trump, and that the former president is guilty of crimes.
She has described Jan. 6 as a “mob attack” on “the very foundation of our democracy” and branded the issue at the heart of the case she is hearing – Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen – a conspiracy theory. “
The judge has imposed her political views many time with other J6 cases.
“But even as she warns Trump about his “inflammatory” language, Chutkan has routinely issued politically charged rulings and made incendiary statements of her own while presiding over some 30 cases involving Trump supporters charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, melee at the U.S. Capitol. “
The lunatic left would not hesitate to make this about race if a white judge had been presiding over a case against, say, Obama and his supporters. Let’s see her face:
I haven’t got her home address and I wouldn’t supply it and “doxx” her even if I had it. Unlike those that obtained SCOTUS judges home addresses and forced them into hiding because the DoJ refused to arrest or prosecute those ne’er do well “protestors” though they did arrest one mongrel armed to the teeth.
From Wikipedia:
“On December 19, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Chutkan as a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a seat created pursuant to 104 Stat. 5089. .. On June 4, 2014, her nomination was confirmed by a 95–0 vote.[15] She received her judicial commission on June 5, 2014.”
Matt Gaetz is not best pleased.
“GOP Rep. Matthew Gaetz of Florida recently filed a resolution to condemn and censure Chutkan for exhibiting “open bias and partisanship in the conduct of her official duties as a judge.”
You would think that by now it may have dawned on the Judge that she is “out of order” legally and mentally. I wonder if she will see the light. If only there was a legal board, like the medical boards that sack someone on mental grounds without having to present any evidence!
“The U.S. code that addresses grounds for recusal states, ”Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” One reason to recuse is if the judge has demonstrated “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
Personal bias. 30 cases demonstrating political bias. I guess personal and political are different things under the law?
No chance of transferring the trial to a court with a neutral judge?
“Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University, said that typically a judge can be recused for bias or the appearance of bias “only when the purported bias comes from a source outside the judge's work as a judge.” He continued, “Almost never will a judge be recused for opinions she forms as a judge – in hearing cases and motions. Judges are expected to form opinions based on these 'intrajudicial' sources. It's what judges do.”
That sounds like BS to me. Judges are allowed to show bias if they become biased when hearing evidence? I thought judges ensured orderly courts and determined sentencing once a jury determined guilt or innocence?
If an orderly court means ensuring a Judges-‘s biases are followed, it is hardly an orderly court – it is a biased one.
“Hanging judges” spring to mind, updated to standards set by the Cult of Moloch (that is, any method to impose misery on as many people as possible).
Onwards!
Please buy a subscription or donate a coffee (I drink a lot of coffee) - “God Bless You!” if you can’t or don’t want to contribute. Coffee donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - an annual subscription of 100 bucks is one third less than a $3 coffee a week!
And so she should recuse herself from the bench but probably won’t and she won’t be prosecuted
They own the prosecutor, judge, and will probably own the juries also. The rule of law is now that nearly everything is against the law so everyone could be charged with something. But the ruling class gets to decide who gets prosecuted and who gets a free pass to keep up the true crime.