re: Trump's J6 Judge Previously Expressed Anger Trump Was Still “Free” and Not Behind Bars

quote:

---

So an experience judge, confirmed unanimously by the Senate, with an outstanding reputation you have a problem with but a completely inexperienced judge in Florida who most think is unqualified and over her head is ok. Got it

---

Experience and reputation are completely irrelevant to recusal. There are reasons the recusal rules exist. Sometimes judges have to recuse themselves regardless of how experienced they are. Has nothing to do with whether or not they could even make the right decision. They are required to recuse when a reasonable person thinks they may have bias against a criminal defendant.

What if her daughter was the criminal defendant? She still has the same experience and still was confirmed unanimously. Do you think she should recuse?

Here is the standard:

(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.

Suggesting in prior proceedings for J6 defendants that the entire episode was blind loyalty to one man who probably should be in jail is textbook grounds for recusal.

The only question is whether scotus steps in before trial or on appeal to slap down this judge for failure to recuse.

quote:

---

So an experience judge, confirmed unanimously by the Senate, with an outstanding reputation you have a problem with but a completely inexperienced judge in Florida who most think is unqualified and over her head is ok. Got it

---

She previously lamented the fact that he was a free man in relation to the substance of this case, now she's the arbiter over whether or not he remains free. She's proven herself to have a bias as to what her desired outcome is. That line alone is enough to seek recusal.

If she is obviously biased against a person in her court…yes.

Why do you deflect in such a trolling manner?
To support political persecution?

You have simply exposed yourself as the goose-stepper that you are at heart.