Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Files COMPLETELY FRIVOLOUS Motion Attacking Federal Judge

Episode Date: September 12, 2023

Legal AF hosts Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok report on the recusal motion Donald Trump filed to try and remove federal judge Tanya Chutkan from the federal criminal case in Washington DC.  Go to https://neurohacker.com/LEGAL for up to 50% off Qualia Senolytic and as a listener of LEGALAF use code LEGAL at checkout for an extra 15% off your first purchase! Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVai.com. Ben Myceles and Michael Popak here from Legal AF and important, but frivolous legal filing in the federal criminal case against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C.

being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith. Donald Trump has filed a motion for recusal of the district court judge, judge, Tonya Chutkin. This case has now been proceeding for many, many weeks. There's no facts that Donald Trump is citing in this motion for recusal that was not known to him before he heard when the trial date was going to be set. Also what he cites as reasons for the recusal are totally without merit. I want to hear from you though, Michael Popeye, because it's one of the more frivolous motions that I've seen, especially the timing of this being filed. Now this seems like it's more intended for PR than any legal merit, but that's kind of what we're used to now when it comes to Donald Trump in these cases.

There's a slow news day in Trump world and he decided to file. Emotion, he's been telegraphing. It's been telegraphing that punch you and I've been talking about it for like five weeks, six weeks, you and I could have record, this is live. I'll hold up a newspaper to show it's live, but we could have recorded this a month and a half ago

because exactly what he said on one of his rallies or one of his speeches or one of his interviews with Fox News, I forget exactly where are all three. He said, oh, Tonya Chukkin, bad person, Marxist, I don't know where he gets that from, husband and she, terrible people, and bias. We're gonna be moving to disqualify. So we've been hearing about the motion of disqualify qualify and you and I back then on legal AF looked up the very quotes that we knew we're going to end

up in this eight or 10 page motion nine page motion today, which were in a couple of times where she has sentenced and or been the presiding judge in a Jan 6th insurrectionist case where they got convicted either by the jury or more likely by Tonya Chukkin. And she among, you know, there's a hand, there's a number of DC circuit court federal judges. Each one of them have been assigned dozens of these Jan 6 cases because there are dozens of them. There's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds that have been filed they're being processed. That'll go on long into the future and she's handled a number one, a number of them and at least two of them. The defense of the week that was going around that week was the defense of I was just following orders And the orders that I was following as an insurrectionist

were commanded by my commander-in-chief Donald J. Trump. I was, you know, this is like the Nazi soldiers in the Nuremberg trial just saying they were following orders. And so it gave an opportunity either at sentencing or during the trial usually at sentencing because the trial judge handles both the bench trial, if it is a bench trial, and convicts the person, and then three or four months later sentences that person.

And so she hears the argument both in the defense and during sentencing. And during sentencing, a couple of times she commented totally rightly. She is a carbon-based human being that has eyes and ears. She has heard evidence in multiple cases that she's not immune to in which they argued we didn't do it. We did it because we were commanded to do it. And she made a comment a couple of times where she said, listen, I get that you were exorbit to do certain things and you followed that call by people who are not here. And I have my own opinions

about why they are not here. In other words, why America, Ireland's Department of Justice before even Jack Smith got appointed did not yet as of that moment. Prosecute Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, Giuliani, and the others, Jeff Clark, Chatterone opinions. And she's allowed to make a comment like that without it crossing over into bias, which is what you need to show, one of the things you need to show, appearance of impropriety, so much so that the defendant sixth amendment right

to a fair trial and impartial jury and partial judge has been violated and they have to show that. It can't be things that she's done in the case right now against Donald Trump because that's a loser when it's when it's when you try to file a motion to recuse or disqualify the judge, you can't point to all the time she's already ruled against you because that cannot form under the case law. That cannot form the basis of the motion to disqualify or recuse. So you got to point to things outside the case that you're in.

You can't say, oh, she made me go to trial too fast. I didn't like that. She wouldn't give me more days or she ruled against me on a discovery issue or whatever. Can't be that unless she mentioned something in the case that really shows her bias, like she's like a hot mic moment, right? She turns to her bailiff when she doesn't think anybody can hear her and says, this guy is so effing guilty. I can't wait till we get to the trial. And I'm going to screw him all along the way every emotion I can. Okay, that happened during the tr the, during the current proceeding. You can file a

motion. By the way, I had a case with something like that happened where a judge in another case was overheard talking about my case. Fortunately, there was a lawyer there who overheard it, told me about it, filed an affidavit, got the judge disqualified. So it happens, not going to happen with Judge Tony Chukkin, but it happens. But generally, you can't point to just bad adverse rulings within your case. You have to point to some other things. So they've got a couple of comments, I want to hear all your your view on this. And then of course, as the judge, this gets filed with the judge for those that don't do

this every day, like you and I do, judge Chukkin makes the decision based on what is in front of her on this skimpy, skimpy, I'm just going to show it, skimpy nine pages, her two comments and some case law that they have misinterpreted, including the leading case in this area, Litke, a Supreme Court precedent, to make their case. They are the Todd Blanche and John Loro who filed this are going to go down in flames. And I want you to not only comment on the comments, but also on the timing. Yes, there's no requirement in the federal rules unlike some states that you bring it immediately upon the event.

But we are pretty deep into this case, for them to be pointing to things that they knew or should have known about back when she was the first to sign the case. Have you heard of Cenecent cells, also known as zombie cells? These old worn out cells no longer serve a useful function for our health, wasting our energy and nutritional resources.

These zombie cells tend to accumulate in our bodies as we age, leading to the aches, slow workout recoveries, and sluggish mental and physical energy associated with that middle age feeling. Our sponsor, NeuroHacker, packed seven of the most science-backed, senolytic ingredients into one formula called Qualia-sensolytic. And you can take it just two days a month for fast, noticeable benefits, and a much better aging process. Sensolytic ingredients are science back to support our body's natural elimination of

zombie cells. My body and energy levels feel about 15 years younger after just a couple of months of adding qualia-sens's analytic to my diet. I love how easy it is to take. Having more physical and mental energy for my family and friends is such a win in how I show up for those I love. My productivity has doubled. I feel invigorated and enthusiastic again with the daily drive and enthusiasm to get things done.

The formula is non GMO vegan, vegan, gluten-free, and the ingredients are meant to complement one another, factoring in the combined effect of all ingredients together. It's also backed by a 100-day money-backed guarantee, so you have almost three months to try qualia at no financial risk and decide for yourself. If you're in your late 20s or older, adding quality of senile to your diet can play a crucial role in combating negative aging symptoms. Go to neurohacker.com slash legal for up to 50% off quality of senile. And as a listener of legal AF, use code legal at checkout for an extra 15% off your first

purchase. That's neurohacker.com slash legal to try Kwaga Sennelitic with code legal and start aging on your terms. They could have brought this recusal motion if it was in good faith. And I still think it would have been entirely without merit, but they could have brought this recusal motion when the indictment was first handed down and the case was assigned to Judge Chutkin. They could have brought it the week after, weeks after, but what they waited for was the August 28th hearing where Judge Chutkin made an order that they didn't like. Judge Chutkin set a trial date for March 4th of 2024, and Donald Trump and his lawyers started whining and complaining about that trial date. So now, two weeks after

even that was ruled upon, they're now seeking the recusal. So to your point, while there isn't necessarily a time frame requirement that it be brought within X number of days, certainly it will raise a significant skepticism regarding the credibility of it, not just at the district court level, and the district court, when Judge Chutkin rules on the recusal motion against her. And I'm confident she will comment on it. Or later on, if there are any claims that she should have recused, which I don't think there will be any valid, any receptive audience in the court of appeals or elsewhere. That will be certainly cited. And you did a hot take that dropped earlier

in the morning on Monday, which just talked generally about how Donald Trump's lawyers continue to wave deadlines and miss deadlines and forget to file on time. The one you did, Popack about Alina Haaba missing a critical deadline, and now waving a jury trial in the New York Attorney General's Civil fraud cases, just one example of it. So that's the issue on the timing. And then on the issue of

the statements that Judge Judd could make, I'll just read you one of them. There were only two that were pointed out. And this is from October 2022, before the special council's appointment, during a sentencing, this is what was stated by Judge Chutkin. This was nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government, illegally lawfully, peacefully elected government by individuals who were mad that they are guy lost. I see the videotapes, I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats that they were wearing and the garb and the people who were carrying and the people who mobbed that capital 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 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. It's a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day. That's a statement of objective truth. That is just the reality. The person who they swore fealty, blind loyalty to, is and was free as of that day, and that these people came in service of one man, not to the Constitution. That's just what happened. I know in the Maga Republican world where they sing songs with the January insurrectionists and claim this is normal. That's okay. It isn't a okay behavior. And so what they're faulting judge Chukkin for is simply looking at the mirror of what took place that day and saying,

here's what's in the mirror and not saying something like Donald Trump is the hero and Donald Trump is strong and he passes a QT tests and don't you dare challenge him to an IQ like what do you want a judge to say when presented with objective facts. And she's responding to the lawyer's arguments. She didn't raise Donald Trump on her own. She didn't get on the bench and go, well, let's first talk about the person that's missing the 800 pound former president that's missing from the room. She didn't do that. She's responding to their argument

for a lesser sentence, the lawyers, because they raised Donald Trump and said the commander in chief for these defendants, you know, they were just following orders and she had to comment. It would be weird if she didn't comment on it. And of course, Donald Trump's like, well, we commented too far. Oh, what too far? Prejudged my case. Look, that that, as you said, that is never going to work. But here's my question for you, Ben, related to all this. We know he's going to lose. They're going to take an appeal to the DC circuit, a of Appeals, which is generally a democratically appointed bench, lose there, try to do something with the Supreme

Court. Meantime, the case just continues to roll along with the trial date, obviously an attempt to throw sand in the gears of the trial date. But why, I mean, you touched on it earlier, but why do you think they've raised it now at this particular moment? We joked about a slow news week and something. Why do you think they did it today? I think that Donald Trump, one is incredibly impulsive and he's ranting and raving like Galnutick even more than ever on his social media platform.

And it's getting worse and worse and worse each day. So I think that's part of it. It's probably impulse emotion and the fear that he feels and he's just a man that they file and they do whatever he wants to do. I think that's number one. Number two, if you want to look at it as being strategic, you can basically say, well, maybe they're going to basically say, we're going to file all of these things that we know are going to be appealed. And maybe just maybe we could get the Supreme Court to issue one, even though we know we're going to lose at the Supreme Court, one of those emergency stays

that they give on kind of high profile cases, where then there's a briefing period. It goes before the Supreme Court, and maybe the Supreme Court uses its shadow docket just to cause kind of a few week delay. And then maybe if we do that a number of times, we could get this date bumped a little bit more. So I think it's kind of one of one of those two or a combination of those two. What do you think? Yeah, I know I agree with you.

I think they want to preserve it on appeal. She'll deny it. I think it's a loser at the DC court of appeals. I'm not even sure they do it on an expedited briefing schedule. And I even think this Supreme Court, right, weighing Maga as it is, on things related to Donald Trump, he does not win often with the Supreme Court, despite Alito and Thomas with their pen hovering over any order to

favor Donald Trump. The rest really don't. And so I don't think he wins there, but you're right. I think it was just slow news day, timing, baby, and all of that and preserving it ultimately for appeal because then he can tell his, or maybe he's got a fundraiser, a fundraising email ready to go where he's, you know, he needs slow, slow news day and needs money. And so as we just move to the qualify, the racist, Marxist, you know, whatever, Judge Chuckkin, and here's the comment she made attached, his this amount of my filing is, please send your money in. And he makes another $20 million. You know, as you've always said, a lot of what we watch Donald Trump does only makes sense

if he's doing the grift. Well, and as a notable lawyer, George Conway said about this motion for recusal. The technical legal standard applicable to this motion is L-O-L, because it's just that frivolous. Pompac, thank you so much for joining me here on this legal AF hot take. Everybody make sure you check out the legal AF podcast wherever audio podcasts are available and hit subscribe on our YouTube. We're on our way to two million subscribers. Thanks to your support. Have a great day. Hey, MidasMiddi.

Love this report. Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram. At MidasTouch to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now. you