In a supplemental motion submitted Sunday to the court pointlessly demanding DC Circuit Judge Tanya Chutkan recuse herself from disgraced former President Trump’s federal coup attempt trial, the fat bastard’s lawyers responded directly and very bitchily to the opposing motion filed last week by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s team defending Chutkan. Team Trump were evidently triggered when Smith’s deputies wrote that Chutkan’s “statements addressing this sentencing mitigation argument were factually accurate, responsive to arguments presented to the Court” when sentencing January 6th defendant Christine Priola, who had literally tried to blame Trump for inciting her to attack the Capitol in her October 2022 sentencing memorandum.

“I see the videotapes. I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats they were wearing and the garb. And the people who mobbed that Capitol 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 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,” Chutkan had told Priola at the sentencing after hearing out her arguments for leniency, which the Trump lawyers zeroed in on.

“The prosecution misleadingly argues President Trump has not established the Disqualifying Statements derived from an extrajudicial source…t he events of January 6 have been the subject of pervasive news coverage, especially in Washington DC. No reasonable person could conclude that the Disqualifying Statements were based on information connected to judicial proceedings, rather than upon news reports or other ‘extrajudicial sources.’ Although the Court’s statements may have been intrajudicial, the basis for those statements was undoubtedly extrajudicial,” Team Orange complained in the supplemental motion, apparently believing they speak for all reasonable people when they think this is an argument that this har-splitting bullshit will get a judge to recuse.