Former President Donald Trump lost his bid on Wednesday to recuse the federal judge presiding over his 2020 election subversion case after he claimed she couldn't be an impartial jurist.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump's request to remove herself from the second case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, which followed an indictment earlier this year over his alleged mishandling of classified documents.
HERE ARE THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE PLEDGED TO VOTE NO ON STOPGAP SPENDING MEASURE
Ever since Trump was indicted in August on four charges accusing him of a scheme to subvert the 2020 election, he has clung to Chutkan's past rhetoric and harsh sentences given to defendants involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, arguing her words indicate an "apparent prejudgment of guilt."
“The public must have confidence that President Trump’s constitutional rights are being protected by an unbiased judicial officer. No president is a king, but every president is a United States citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” his lawyer John Lauro wrote in a court filing.
Chutkan is best known for using the phrase "presidents are not kings" when she denied Trump's bid to block House investigators from obtaining his presidential records. The phrase was first used by then-Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who now sits on the Supreme Court, in a previous Trump-related lawsuit. The phrase has now become a well-known part of Chutkan's jurisprudence.
In their filings in support of her recusal, Trump's lawyers pointed to comments she's made when weighing the sentences of other riot defendants.
“Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned,” Trump’s attorneys wrote on Sept. 11.
But Smith was adamant that Chutkan should remain on the case, arguing Trump's team provided no "valid basis" for her removal.
“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,” prosecutors wrote, noting, "The defendant’s motion fails to establish any bias by the Court, much less the deep-seated antagonism required for recusal, the Court has a duty to continue to oversee this proceeding.”
Chutkan, like any other judge who faces calls for recusal, was the sole decider on whether to remain or recuse herself from the case. While legal experts saw Trump's move as one that was likely to fail from the start, his filings on the topic could be used in appeals if he is convicted.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"You and I would be more likely to both independently buy lottery tickets tonight — different states — and both win and split the Mega Millions," constitutional attorney Andrew Lieb of Lieb at Law told the Washington Examiner on Sept. 11. The attorney said Chutkan's decision is appealable but that Trump likely wouldn't prevail.
The ruling by Chutkan also comes as Trump is facing a request by Smith to implement a narrow gag order on the former president, as prosecutors have cited his attacks on social media as potential harassment or witness intimidation. Chutkan has yet to decide on that request.