Trump's argument that the DC judge should recuse herself for having made comments in prior trials is a good example.

I don't think so. I think that Trump's attorneys would be committing malpractice if they didn't move to recuse her.

You're correct that judges are required to explain their rationale for sentencing. That happens all the time. But it is unusual for a judge to make comments about an individual in the sentencing phase of one case, and then be the judge presiding over the trial of that individual in their own criminal case on substantially the same subject matter.

It's impossible for Trump to draw a judge that is unaware of who he is or the broad strokes of what he's accused of - he's one of the most public figures there is, and this is one of the most publicly-known events in the last several years. But it's not impossible for him to draw a judge who hasn't already had some of those facts and circumstances actually litigated in her courtroom, or who wasn't already forced to draw conclusions of fact and law from the evidence presented to her in a proceeding that Trump wasn't allowed to participate in.

The judge certainly won't recuse herself - but it's not a frivolous argument, nor is it likely that his lawyers filed it because they expected it would delay (at all) this proceeding. They might not have a great chance of winning on that point on appeal (it's a tough standard) - but it's not a non-zero chance, given how unusual these circumstances are.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.