Trump's demand for Chutkan's recusal is... um... [gulp]... justified. [Ick. Gulp. Yikes.]

 There is an old cliche that a stopped clock is right twice per day.  There are military-style clocks which, when stopped, would only be right once per day.  Donald Trump is a different kind of mechanism.  I have dubbed him, "the lying-est liar who ever lied a lie."  He would be closer to a digital clock that skips and skitters across the domain of the day in an attempt to be incorrect at all times based on a random number-generating algorithm rooted in quantum computing.  Such a clock will still stumble onto a correct time, despite the programmer's best efforts to be otherwise, every once in a while.  It is possible to be wrong at all times, but only if the algorithm is generated based on the absolute correct time at all times, adjusted with an error.  Otherwise, dumb luck of the dumbest possible varieties will give you a correct answer some time, and Donald Trump is not a smart man.  My point, ladies and gentlemen, is that I am not what one would call a Trump supporter.  I did not vote for him, and the question of what it would take to get me to vote for him is a terrifying one because it would mean pitting him against an even more terrifying figure, although if you cannot imagine such a figure, might I recommend some history books?  Or even some broader news sources?

I digress.

Donald Trump has demanded that Judge Tanya Chutkan recuse herself, arguing that her statements demonstrate a belief that Donald Trump-- the defendant in a case over which she presides-- should be imprisoned.  If she has a record of statements indicating such a belief, then she has literally prejudged him, he cannot trust that the trial will be overseen fairly, and he deserves a new judge.

If Trump can show a record of statements demonstrating such a belief, then his claim has merit.

Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, as much as I think Trump is guilty as sin, and as much as I have derived personal pleasure from Chutkan's past Trump smackdowns, Trump's claim has merit.

Here is what Chutkan said.  She asserted that January 6 defendants were motivated by, "blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day."

As a factual matter, did Chutkan say anything false?  No, but cut the crap.  Did she imply a belief that Trump should not remain free?  You know she did, and that's why you got off on it.

When she wrote, "presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not president," that was merely a "sick burn," in technical terms.  She was probably more harsh than she needed to be, but nothing in that gloriously sick burn could reasonably, legally be interpreted as prejudicial towards any other claims Trump might make, like, "I shouldn't go to prison."  She was just brushing aside legal claims that did not have a shred of merit with the kind of writing technique that I only wish I had.

But don't pretend she didn't mean what you know she meant.  She meant that Trump's freedom was either unjustified or at least questionable when he hadn't been convicted nor even charged.

Judges are supposed to avoid making those kinds of statements precisely because they can be viewed as prejudicial.  Chutkan fucked up.

Realistically, we knew what she thought of Trump regardless of that line, just from statements like the "Plaintiff is not president" line, just as we know what Aileen Cannon thinks of Trump, but Cannon hasn't said anything about Jack Smith to indicate a need for recusal even if her rulings have been, shall we say, questionable.

Chutkan, though, crossed a line.

Put it this way.  Imagine that some day, you find yourself as a defendant, and the judge had made a statement in the past bemoaning that you "remain free to this day."

Would you trust that you were getting a fair trial?  No, you would not.

It does not follow that any specific ruling from Chutkan has been wrong, and in principle, Trump can appeal rulings at this stage, but should he have to?  Should you have to?  Or should you have a judge who has never bemoaned your freedom before you were even charged?

Rules must be generalizable, or we have no rule of law.  I doubt you will find anyone more convinced of Trump's guilt than I am, but on this point, he is right.  If you would not accept a judge who has previously bemoaned your freedom, then why would you demand that he do so?  Rule of law means rules.  This is not 'Nam, Donnie, there are rules.

Ernest Ranglin, "None Shall Escape The Judgment," from Below The Bassline.