During the initial proceedings of the criminal case against Donald Trump, in which he is accused of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan repeatedly cautioned the former president’s attorneys against bringing political issues into 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.”

Real Clear Investigations revealed that despite cautioning President Trump about his use of “inflammatory” rhetoric, Chutkan has consistently delivered judgments with political undertones and made provocative remarks throughout her oversight of approximately 30 cases involving Trump supporters charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 disturbance at the United States Capitol.

An examination of extensive hearing transcripts reveals that Chutkan has consistently expressed firm and established opinions regarding the fundamental issues pertinent to the ongoing criminal case under her jurisdiction, United States v. Donald Trump.

The aforementioned statements pertain to her public assertions regarding the integrity of the 2020 election, her belief that former President Trump staged the January 6 protests, and her argument that the former president is guilty of criminal offenses. The individual in question has described the events of January 6 as a “mob attack” against the fundamental principles upon which our democratic system is founded. In addition, she has characterized as a conspiracy theory the central issue in the case she presides over, namely former President Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was illegally taken from him.

Despite the common occurrence of judges making remarks from the bench, Chutkan’s use of forceful language raises concerns about her ability to maintain impartiality while presiding over the case involving the likely 2024 Republican presidential nominee.

According to the United States code governing recusal, any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States is required to recuse themselves from any case in which their impartiality may be reasonably questioned. One compelling rationale for recusal is when the judge has exhibited “a subjective inclination or preconceived notion regarding a party.”

Representative Matthew Gaetz, a member of the Republican Party from Florida, has just introduced a resolution with the intent of condemning and formally reprimanding Judge Chutkan for demonstrating “evident prejudice and favoritism in the execution of her official responsibilities as a judge.”

However, if the objective of Trump supporters is to have a new judge designated to the case, they will face a difficult legal challenge. According to Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, a judge may be removed from office for prejudice or the appearance of bias “only when the purported bias comes from a source outside the judge’s work as a judge.” He stated, “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.”

Regarding the alleged prejudice of Judge Chutkan, a Trump spokesperson declined to comment. The president of the American Bar Association and the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not respond to requests for comment. Neither Chutkan nor Chutkan.

More on this story via The Republic Brief:

Chutkan was one of the strictest judges on Jan. 6 defendants after being appointed by Barack Obama to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2013. She has frequently sentenced offenders to more time behind bars than what the prosecution had recommended. She sentenced defendants to jail time in at least two cases when prosecutors just asked for probation. Chutkan said that she is “one of the few judges that’s given a lot of terms of incarceration” in Jan. 6 cases during a court hearing in July 2022. CONTINUE READING…