Then the conversation shifted to Trump's filing. According to the ex-president, Judge Chutkan has already decided where she stands on Jan. 6, and thus he can't get a fair trial. The problem is that having a judge recused is notoriously difficult, as Norm Eisen and Carrie Cordero explained on CNN.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
O'Donnell commented that the argument outlined by Trump's lawyers seemed "well argued" using citations from one of her previous rulings. In the past, Trump's filings seemed more like press releases. Such was the case in Georgia when his attorneys filed a motion to possibly expect a motion. Analysts explained that it isn't the way the law works.
Weissmann disagreed with the idea that it was "well argued."
"If you are going to make this motion, first, it needs to be made timely. You don't get to sit on your rights for six weeks to see what the judge does on your effort to delay a trial date," he explained. "And when you don't like that ruling, you say, you know what, I want a different judge. That's why the law requires these kinds of recusal motions to be made at the very first instance instead of playing games which is what happened here."
His second point is that demanding recusal using Judge Chutkan's sentencing comments doesn't fly because judges are allowed to express views about co-defendants during sentencing.
"That's all that happened here," Weissmann said. As civil rights lawyer and Professor Maya Wiley said Monday, there must be evidence of financial conflicts of interest or bias.
"There was nothing that you have read [of Chutkan's sentencing] that is not 100 percent true and accurate," added Weissmann. "And then finally it is really hard to be talking about recusal when we are sitting with at least two Supreme Court justices in situations that actually call for recusal, who are not doing anything whatsoever. That is Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito. And the idea that Judge Chutkan should recuse herself based on valid comments made about co-defendants at sentencing, where the federal sentencing guidelines call on judges to make these comments at sentencing, really, to me shows, to my mind, that the lawyers are not exercising any control on their client."
O'Donnell argued that at the time Chutkan made the comments Trump wasn't charged. Still, Weissmann said it doesn't mean that a judge can't issue a statement of facts.
"When you have a case before you, and you are at sentencing, you have to describe for the particular defendant why you are sentencing the person to a particular time," Weissmann told the host. "Why you are accepting arguments, and why you are rejecting arguments? That can involve other people, people who are charged, and people who are not charged. So, there is nothing about what she said that's improper. It's actually important for her to say why she's accepting things. Nothing about the two statements that you read in any way, to my mind, means that she cannot be fair, or even an appearance of impropriety or not being able to be impartial."
O'Donnell side-stepped Weissmann, telling Katyal that it's the "appearance" of impropriety that can be the most important.
"There could be a very large perception up there that she is not fair, that she is biased because of these statements," he said.
Katyal said he doesn't find it shocking that Trump would make that kind of argument because "Judge Chutkan is Donald Trump's least favorite kind of judge, an honest one. And when we talk about the appearance of impartiality, I think there are two problems with it, and both Andrew has pointed to."
It has been 42 days, he said, since Judge Chutkan was assigned Trump's case, and at no point did his lawyers file to have her removed.
"If anything, the appearance of an improper motion occurring would have to have a fact," Katyal continued. "The other thing that Andrew was getting at is that these statements are made in court all the time. Indeed, ten different judges in Washington, D.C., and ten different federal judges, Lawrence, have made similar statements about Jan. 6th defendants and Donald Trump."
He went on to cite several judges who lambasted the "Stop the Steal" rally and the march to the Capitol. He also pointed to Judge Aileen Cannon and the things that she said in court last year.
"Those arguments about Mar-a-Lago, actual rulings made about Donald Trump that are wackadoodles and slapped down by the court of appeals," said Katyal. "You didn't see the Justice Department going in and say, we needed a different judge, or appearance of impartiality, things like that. They understand the threshold, and that the standard is very difficult. They didn't find such a thing."
See the full conversation below or at the link here.
Legal experts mock Trump lawyers' DC recusal demand: They can't control their client
youtu.be
