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 judgeâs recusal, claiming that the totality of the facts and circumstances at play, including that the judge donated âat least $1,600â to President Joe Bidenâs 2020 campaign, make a new jurist necessary.
Garrett Zieglerâs 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 Zieglerâs Marco Polo websites, the ones that posted the so-called âBiden Laptop Report,â will be âshut downâ â with potential consequences for Republicansâ presidential impeachment inquiry.
âThe 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 Defendantsâ investigative reporting and contents on the Biden Laptop, possibly impacting the impeachment investigation,â the Ziegler motion warned. âA reasonable person would question whether Judge Vera has a bias in ensuring that President Biden stays in office, given his political contributions to President Bidenâs 2020 presidential election campaign and his appointment to the federal court by President Biden just three months before this case was assigned to him.â
But havenât other recusal requests that pushed for judgesâ ousters based on who appointed them failed? Yes, they have. For Ziegler, this request is different because it doesnât merely oppose Vera based on the political donation or which president appointed the judge.
âDefendants 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,â the motion said. âRather, 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 Veraâs decisions in this case will be impartial.â
The defense again emphasized that if Vera were to hand Hunter Biden a win it could âprevent and inhibit the public, media and Congress from accessing highly relevant evidence to the impeachment inquiry of President Biden,â in whom the judge âmade a financial investmentâ and for whose reelection Vera has âan obvious interest and affinity.â
Arguing that Vera has the power to âaffect the outcome of the presidential impeachment inquiryâ with a potentially far-reaching ruling in Hunter Bidenâs favor, Ziegler claimed the stakes couldnât be higher.
âIf 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,â the motion continued. âAn 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 â 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.â
In a declaration from Ziegler himself, the defendant asserted that a âreasonable personâ could now question if the judge can be impartial.
âAfter 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,â he wrote.
In recent weeks, Hunter Biden cited Zieglerâs âsurprisingly frank admissionâ in a sworn declaration as proof that he and co-defendants in the California federal case engaged in âunlawful data access as a matter of law,â as opposed to engaging in âprotectedâ First Amendment activity.
âDefendants present a sworn declaration from Ziegler in which he admits under oathâperhaps without realizing the consequences of doing soâthat Defendants spent months âlocatingâ Plaintiffâs passwords and then used one or more of those passwords to access Plaintiffâs password-protected data,â Bidenâs filing said.
The docket entry for Zieglerâs recusal motion said a hearing has been set for 10 a.m. on April 25.
