Share this @internewscast.com
Hunter Biden (Ap Photo/Patrick Semansky), Garrett Ziegler (Sky News Australia/YouTube screengrab)
The former Trump White House policy analyst being sued by Hunter Biden for allegedly violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is now gunning for the judge’s recusal, claiming that the totality of the facts and circumstances at play, including that the judge donated “at least $1,600” to President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, make a new jurist necessary.
Garrett Ziegler’s attorney Robert Tyler argued Thursday that if U.S. District Judge Hernan Vera, a 2023 Joe Biden appointee, rules in favor of Hunter Biden, then there is a real possibility Ziegler’s Marco Polo websites, the ones that posted the so-called “Biden Laptop Report,” will be “shut down” — with potential consequences for Republicans’ presidential impeachment inquiry.
“The outcome of this litigation could affect the outcome of the presidential impeachment inquiry. If Judge Vera grants the injunction, it would prevent the public, media, and Congress from accessing Defendants’ investigative reporting and contents on the Biden Laptop, possibly impacting the impeachment investigation,” the Ziegler motion warned. “A reasonable person would question whether Judge Vera has a bias in ensuring that President Biden stays in office, given his political contributions to President Biden’s 2020 presidential election campaign and his appointment to the federal court by President Biden just three months before this case was assigned to him.”
But haven’t other recusal requests that pushed for judges’ ousters based on who appointed them failed? Yes, they have. For Ziegler, this request is different because it doesn’t merely oppose Vera based on the political donation or which president appointed the judge.
“Defendants do not bring this Motion based on the mere fact that Judge Vera made a political contribution to support the sitting President, because he contributed to a political party, or because Judge Vera was merely appointed by President Biden,” the motion said. “Rather, this Motion is brought because the subject matter of the litigation, the relief sought, and the surrounding facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable observer to question whether Judge Vera’s decisions in this case will be impartial.”
The defense again emphasized that if Vera were to hand Hunter Biden a win it could “prevent and inhibit the public, media and Congress from accessing highly relevant evidence to the impeachment inquiry of President Biden,” in whom the judge “made a financial investment” and for whose reelection Vera has “an obvious interest and affinity.”
Arguing that Vera has the power to “affect the outcome of the presidential impeachment inquiry” with a potentially far-reaching ruling in Hunter Biden’s favor, Ziegler claimed the stakes couldn’t be higher.
“If the relief requested by Plaintiff is granted, Defendants may be forced to shut down the websites. There is no other website accessible to the public that contains this important information,” the motion continued. “An injunction would eliminate access of the public, media, and members of Congress to the information on the websites that implicate matters of national and international concern – the potential foreign compromise and criminal wrongdoing of the First Family of the United States. Furthermore, an injunction might substantially impede the impeachment inquiry as well.”
In a declaration from Ziegler himself, the defendant asserted that a “reasonable person” could now question if the judge can be impartial.
“After providing the information to Defense counsel and evaluating the legal merits of bringing this Motion to Recuse, I instructed my attorneys to prepare and file the motion as soon as reasonably practicable in order to avoid Judge Vera making any initial rulings in this case,” he wrote.
In recent weeks, Hunter Biden cited Ziegler’s “surprisingly frank admission” in a sworn declaration as proof that he and co-defendants in the California federal case engaged in “unlawful data access as a matter of law,” as opposed to engaging in “protected” First Amendment activity.
“Defendants present a sworn declaration from Ziegler in which he admits under oath—perhaps without realizing the consequences of doing so—that Defendants spent months ‘locating’ Plaintiff’s passwords and then used one or more of those passwords to access Plaintiff’s password-protected data,” Biden’s filing said.
The docket entry for Ziegler’s recusal motion said a hearing has been set for 10 a.m. on April 25.
