Special counsel says there’s ‘no valid basis’ for DC judge in Trump’s Jan 6 case to recuse herself
The office of Special Counsel Jack Smith has argued in a motion that there’s “no valid basis” for Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself after Donald Trump’s legal team argued that she should leave the case because of statements she made when sentencing January 6 rioters. “There is no valid basis, under the relevant law and facts, for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, to disqualify herself in this proceeding,” the special counsel’s office wrote in a 20-page filing on Thursday. “In service of his motion (ECF No. 50) seeking the Court’s recusal, the defendant both takes out of context the Court’s words from prior judicial proceedings and misstates the proper legal standards governing judicial recusals.” The special counsel added that Mr Trump “has failed to identify anything approaching the clear and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality”. The office argued that Mr Trump was using “suggestion and innuendo to insinuate something sinister in the Court simply doing its job by addressing sentencing arguments”. More follows...
The office of Special Counsel Jack Smith has argued in a motion that there’s “no valid basis” for Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself after Donald Trump’s legal team argued that she should leave the case because of statements she made when sentencing January 6 rioters.
“There is no valid basis, under the relevant law and facts, for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, to disqualify herself in this proceeding,” the special counsel’s office wrote in a 20-page filing on Thursday. “In service of his motion (ECF No. 50) seeking the Court’s recusal, the defendant both takes out of context the Court’s words from prior judicial proceedings and misstates the proper legal standards governing judicial recusals.”
The special counsel added that Mr Trump “has failed to identify anything approaching the clear and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality”.
The office argued that Mr Trump was using “suggestion and innuendo to insinuate something sinister in the Court simply doing its job by addressing sentencing arguments”.
More follows...
