OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Former Federal Prosecutor-turned-CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig told the left-leaning outlet’s audience Tuesday on CNN This Morning that former President Donald J. Trump’s motion demanding the recusal of Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s could have merit, in a surprising admission for CNN.
Honig noted that the motion from Trump is an “extreme longshot” although admitting that the motion is “not an outrageous” one in light of public statements made by the Obama-appointed judge known as “the toughest punisher,” of January 6th Capitol Riot participants and even those only tangentially involved.
Explain America reported Tuesday that Trump’s legal team filed the motion on Monday demanding Chutkan’s recusal citing her blatant political bias and repeated instances of calling for the former President to be imprisoned long before he was even indicted.
In the motion filed Monday, the Trump legal team explained,
“Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying.
Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome. The public will reasonably and understandably question whether Judge Chutkan arrived at all of her decisions in this matter impartially, or in fulfillment of her prior negative statements regarding President Trump.”
A RealClearInvestigations report, cited previously by Explain America, uncovered the Judge’s troubling comments during the sentencing of Christine Priola in October 2022. Chutkan reportedly told the defendant, on the record, that it should be former President Trump in her court and a year later, she has her wish.
The people who were involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot“were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant, not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy,” she said.
Adding, “This was nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government, the legally, lawfully, peacefully elected government, by individuals who were mad that their guy lost.”
“It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day,” she said.
The judge claimed that the defendant, “went there to support one man who he viewed had the election taken from him. In total disregard of a lawfully conducted election, he went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country or in support of democracy.”
Trump’s legal team established the statement to be “an apparent prejudgment of guilt.”
“The public meaning of this statement is inescapable — President Trump is free, but should not be,” they wrote.
Though not the reason given for the recusal request, Chutkan could potentially be asked to step aside due to her previous association with a law firm where Hunter Biden was also employed, as reported in August.
The Daily Mail reported, “Chutkan had worked at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner from 2002 until she was confirmed a federal judge in 2014.”
“In a case this widely watched, of such monumental significance, the public must have the utmost confidence that the court will administer justice neutrally and dispassionately,” Trump’s attorneys warned.
