Retired California Superior Court Judge LaDoris Hazzard Cordell mocked ex-President Donald Trump’s team, telling CNN’s Kaitlan Collins their demand to throw Federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan off the Jan. 6 case is just “yelling like hell” without facts.
On Monday, Trump’s attorneys filed a motion demanding Judge Chutkan recuse herself based on statements she made while sentencing other defendants who participated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
Judge Hazzard Cordell was a guest on Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, during which the host asked her to weigh in on the motion. Hazzard Cordell was not impressed with the merits:
COLLINS: Obviously, Judge Chutkan decides if Judge Chutkan will recuse herself here. What do you think is the likelihood of that happening?
HAZZARD CORDELL: Well, Kaitlan, when you don’t have the law, you argue the facts. And when you don’t have the facts, you argue the law. And if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, you pound the table, and yell like hell. And that’s what has happened here.
This is yelling like hell, to get Judge Chutkan, off of this case. And they claim it’s because she’s not impartial. Of course, what they’re relying on is the word she has used in sentencing, those who have been convicted, by juries, in involvement in the insurrection.
So, what they’re really afraid of, and what this recusal motion, or disqualification motion, is all about, they don’t want Judge Chutkan, on this case, not because they believe that she won’t be fair. The trial judge just makes rulings on motions. It is the jury that will decide whether or not Donald Trump should be convicted.
What they’re worried about is if he’s convicted, that she will be the sentencing judge. And they’ve seen how she has responded, to those, who have been convicted, of their involvement.
So, in this instance, this disqualification recusal is discretionary. So, it’s up to her, to think about it, to look at the reasons, they’re raising, and then to decide, can she be fair, in making her rulings? Can she be objective?
And my view, given her history, already in this case, and other cases, she can absolutely be fair, in this case. So, they’re really grasping for straws.
They have a nine-page Memorandum of cases they’ve cited, to try to get rid of her. Not one of those cases involves one, where a judge, in different cases, sentence people and explained why she sentenced them that way, and then use the language used, in that case, in a completely different one, in this case, with Trump to show that she was — she is not impartial.
There’s no case like that. And that would just chill, judges’ speech, when they are required by law. It’s part of their job, to state on the record, their reasons, for the sentences that they impose.
They want her off because he’s really worried if he’s convicted by a jury that she is going to be the one to sentence him.
