Indictment of Robert Menendez monday night, only three United States senators took the position that Senator Menendez should resign and let the democratic governor of new jersey appoint his replacement. The next day, 19 more senators called on Senator Menendez to resign. And tonight, the total stands at 30 Democratic Senators who have called on their democratic colleague to resign. And, of course, not one republican senator wants menendez to resign. Because republicans know the longer Robert Menendez tarnishes the position of senior senator from new jersey, it will be that much easier for republicans to win that new Jersey Senate seat in next years election. It should never have come to this. After Robert Menendez got a hung jury in his First Federal corruption trial, which means that some of the jurors voted guilty. And some of the jurors voted not guilty. The Senate Ethics committee completed its own investigation of Robert Menendez, in which the committee, in a unanimous bipartisan finding said Robert Menendez broke federal law. But the penalty that the Ethics Committee recommended to the senate was nothing more than a public letter of admonition, we said that the committee has determined that this conduct violated senate rules, federal law, and applicable standards of conduct. The senate should have expelled Robert Menendez that day. The senate staff was deeply indicating that there was no one working in the Menendez Office who tried, in any way, to put the brakes on the senators violations of federal law. Senator menendez and his staff desperately trying to protect a doctor, who the senator called his best friend, who was charged with Over Bellowing Overbilling Medicare by eight point 9 million. The senator accepted lavish gifts in exchange for his attempts to corrupt medicare. Democrats in the senate made the inexcusable mistake of instantaneously welcoming Robert Menendez back to the senate after he got a hung jury, as if he had just won a big election. It was a shameful display by senators who should have known better. And now they do. Or, at least 30 of them do. As of tonight, 30 Democratic Senators now say that the greatest embarrassment to the Democratic Party in the senate since new jersey senators harrison williams, who was convicted of robbery 40 years ago, and who Seat Menendez now occupies, should resign. One of those senators will join us later in this hour. Georges Fulton CountyDistrict Attorney fani williss team began their day in court at 8 27 they am a. M. Sidney powell kenneth chesebros District Attorney defendant powells. At 12 56 pm on First Amendment grounds at 1 19 pm and District Attorney willis filed a motion 4 15 pm adopted codefendant Jeffrey Clarks and at 4 45 pm district willis prosecutions, notices, and reservation of rights pertaining to discovery at 4 55 pm District Attorney willis filed a response to codefendant kenneth chesebros motion to dismiss r. I. C. O. Charges and then, at 5 30 pm today in washington d. C. , federal judge Tanya Chutkan denied Donald Trumps request that she recuse herself from the case. Donald trumps lawyers filed a motion requesting her recusal based on two statements that she made in court when sentencing to people convicted in the attack on the capital capitol on january 6th. Those were two separate cases. In one case, judge chutkan said, during the sentencing, that the defendant showed, quote, a Blind Loyalty to one person who, by the, way remains free to this day. In another case, judge chutkan said, to the convicted defendant, you have made a very good point, one that has been made before, that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and valet due to go and take action and to fight have not been charged. The Trump Lawyers filing said judge chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying. In a Written Decision refusing to recuse herself from the case, judge chutkan said, at the outset, it bears noting that the court has never taken the position the defense ascribed to it. That former President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. And the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar. Instead, the defense interprets the courts verbal reiterations of Defendant Palmer and priola s arguments about their relative culpability as suggesting a secret core view about defendants criminality. That Inferential Leak is not reasonable in light of the relevant facts, record and law. Judge chutkan said that those two comments at those two Sentencings Cannot be the basis for a recusal. She said, the Supreme Court has held that the judges statements made in the judicial setting, and reflecting opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings or of prior proceedings do not constitute a basis, or a basis or partiality motion unless they display a deepseated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. That is because such statements often reflect information that the judge properly and necessarily acquired in the course of the proceedings. And that was necessary to the completion of the judges tasks. After all, if a court did not form judgments about the issues in a case, then it could never render decisions. Consequently, statements originating from such intra judicial rather than extra extra judicial sources require recusal only in the Recusal Motions can be a weapon to delay proceedings. She wrote, justice also demand that judges not recuse without cause. In the wrong hands, a Disqualification Motion is a procedural weapon to harass opponents and delay proceedings. If supported only by rumor, speculation or innuendo, it is also a means to tarnish the reputation of a federal judge. This court has, from the beginning, repeated its commitment to ensure the orderly administration of justice in this case as, in any other case. That commitment echoes the courts solemn oath to administer Justice Without respected persons, to do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and who faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties under the constitution and laws of the United States. Based on its review of the law, facts and record, the Court Concludes that a reasonable observer would not doubt its ability to uphold that promise in this case. For these reasons, Defendants Motion for recusal of the District Judge hereby denied. Leading off our discussion tonight is Andrew Weissmann, former fbi General Counsel and former chief of the Criminal Division of the district of new york, hes cohost of the Podcast Prosecuting donald trump, and Glenn Kirschner is with us, and joyce vance, a professor at the nyu school of law. And joyce, the and what are Donald Trumps appeal rights under that decision . Right. So, this decision by judge chutkan that she will not recuse in this case is extremely well reasoned, and it is tough on appeal. The appeal in a setting like try to ask the court of appeals to issue an order called man damask mandamus, which essentially would as successful mandamus here and judge chutkan does everything right in this case, including pointing out that no reasonable observer could think that she is president the prejudice lawrence,. Clear that she has this sort of an extreme. And there is an easy answer that goes beyond simple delay. Its an effort to prejudice the jury pool. And that is what is coming through very clearly with this motion and her response to it. Glenn kirschner, you have practice or appeared before a judge chutkan. You know her work as a judge. What do you see in her decision here that could possibly be the grounds for appeal for donald trump . Yeah, there are no grounds for appeal, or for early mandamus, as joyce vance just suggested. And i never appeared before judge chutkan, but i did try murder cases against her when she was a public defender and i was a federal prosecutor in d. C. And i know her to be a strong, fierce, smart, tactically savvy advocate. And i can also say that she is someone against whom i enjoyed trying cases. I dont say that a about every defense attorney. But its because she was trustworthy. You can always take her at her word, regardless of what she was representing to me as a prosecutor in the case. So, when you read this lengthy ruling, it is so well reasoned. It is pretty bulletproof. And she goes through the reasons that recusal is important and, sometimes appropriate. But just as important, sometimes recusal is inappropriate. And im glad you read it. The passage where she said, in the hands of an if areas litigant, Recusal Motions can be to weaponize the delay in the process. It can be an attempt at judge shopping. And i dont think there would be any relief on appeal, or anywhere else. And as joyce said, the Defense Attorneys continued to stoop, i think, to their clients level. Because these motions that they have been filing read more like a combination of extended tweet and the campaign ad for their client. Yeah. Andrew, there is also a filing about the Trump Lawyers opposing the governments proposedlimited gag order, which would simply say that the defendant cant talk publicly about witnesses. And it does read like a Campaign Press release, that motion. Yeah. I think that motion and i think the Recusal Motion or not accused to the audience you normally address those kinds of motions to, namely, the judge. I think they are addressed to the maga base. They both had the kind of language in it that is not the kind of language that we are used to seeing in a normal court proceeding. They are meant for consumption on a political campaign. One of the most troubling aspects of the defense brief, with respect to the socalled gag order is donald trump saying that he is free to continue attacking with this terribly violent rhetoric judges, jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, that he is free to do that, and he is not responsible for any thirdparty reaction, even though we all know from january 6th that there is a call and response going on with using this incredibly inflammatory language, which he used again today with respect to the judge in new york, who had ruled against him in the fraud case and the idea that this is being written to the d. C. Judge overseeing what kind of limits should we place on him, i found, really, beyond the pale. It will be very interesting to see what she does, and what the other three judges do, who are overseeing him. Because, remember, he is on bail not in one criminal case, but for. That means he does not have the same rights that the rest of us have. This is not a free speech issue. This is a question of Bail Restrictions in connection with four criminal cases. And ive got to say, the comments about the prosecution in this trump response to the a gag order motion, which is a very limited motion, it is the most juvenile and trumpian and unprofessional i think i have ever seen in a reference to two prosecutors. The Trump Lawyers right, the prosecution may not like President Trumps entirely valid criticisms if the prosecution wishes to avoid criticism for abusing its power, the solution is simple. Stop abusing its power. And Glenn Kirschner, it does not get more circular or ridiculous than that. No. It really sounds like a campaign ad. And Andrew Weissmann is dead on. When somebody is on a release in a federal felony case, guess what . Their rights are diminished. For example, a judge could tell somebody, you are not permitted to leave the district of columbia. Or, you are not permitted to enter the district of columbia, except to meet with your lawyers, or attend court. A judge could place you want to curfew, could order you to engage in periodic drug tests, could place you on gps monitoring, and can put narrowly restricted limitations on your speech and your posts so that you dont harass, intimidate, or threaten witnesses or poison the jury pool. And none of that seems to be acknowledged by trumps defense team in these filings. Glenn kirschner, joyce vance, and Andrew Weissmann thank, you all very much for starting off our discussion tonight. And when we come back, we are going to follow up with our team of experts about something Cassidy Hutchinson said on this program last night, and whether that will be become testimony in the case against donald trump and others in georgia, and the case against donald trump in washington d. C. It certainly seems like something that could be highly relevant to the case. Cassidy hutchinson said she gave this testimony to The Grand Jury and those investigations will get our experience prosecutors view after that this break this brea [man struggles] i need some sleep. [man relieved] if you struggle with cpap, you should check out inspire. Inspire. Sleep apnea innovation. Learn more and view Important Safety Information at inspiresleep. Com a mystery jessie loves playing detective. But the real mystery was her irritated skin. So, we switched to tide pods free gentle. It cleans better, and doesnt leave behind irritating residues. And its gentle on her skin. Tide free gentle is epa safer choice certified. Its got to be tide. Are you still struggling with your bra . Its time for you to try knix. Makers of the worlds comfiest wireless bras. For revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a gcup, find your new favorite bra today at knix. Com Liberty Mutual customized my Car Insurance and i saved hundreds. With the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. Oh. [dog barks] no its just a bunny only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Cmon, were right there. Cmon baby. Only pay for what you need. Its the only we need. Go, go, go, go ah Touchdown Baby touchdown are your neighbors watching the same game . Yeah, my 5g Home Internet delays the game a bit. But you get used to it. Try these. Theyre noise cancelling earmuffs. I stole them from an airport. Its always something with you, man. Great solid greek salad . Exactly dont delay the game with verizon or tmobile 5g georgia District AttorneyHome Internet. Catch it on the xfinity 10g network. Fani willis has responded to defendant mark meadows appealed to the 11th Circuit Federal Court of appeals, asking to move the criminal case against him from Fulton County, georgia, to a federal court. To shoot Returnee Willis is brief in opposition to Mark Meadows Federal Appeals says, federal officer removal under 28 usc section 1442 a 1 and having failed to meet his low burden before the Federal District court having ignored the district of Georgia AppellantMark Randall Meadows now asks this court to apply jurisdiction designed to insulate federal authority from State Interference t a case concerning precisely the opposite. Appellant and his codefendants engaged in activities designed to accomplish federal meddling in matters of state authority. Appellant can point to no law, no constitutional provision, and no lawful duty which authorized him to take the actions he did. And his testimony at the evidentiary hearing in this case underscored the case against his removal rather than for it. Mark meadows White House Assistant