As expected

Chutkan wrote that Trump’s “hypersensitive” defense had exaggerated her previous statements and had wrongly claimed that they were informed by news reports or other sources. She maintained that her comments had responded to specific legal arguments of individual defendants who had tried to mitigate their culpability by pointing at Trump.

“A reasonable person — aware of the statutory requirement that the court address the defendant’s arguments and state its reasons for its sentence — would understand that in making the statements contested here, the court was not issuing vague declarations about third parties’ potential guilt in a hypothetical future case,” Chutkan wrote. “Instead, it was fulfilling its duty to expressly evaluate the defendants’ arguments that their sentences should be reduced because other individuals whom they believed were associated with the events of January 6 had not been prosecuted.”

[...]

Chutkan also noted that legal precedents generally discourage judges from making comments based on news reports or their own personal investigation, but in-court remarks based on evidence before the court are generally fair game, even if the evidence comes from a prior, related case.

[...]

“The statements at issue here were based on intrajudicial sources,” Chukan wrote. “They arose not, as the defense speculates, from watching the news, but from the sentencing proceedings…. The statements directly reflected facts proffered and arguments made by those defendants.”

[...]

“The court expressly declined to state who, if anyone, it thought should still face charges,” she wrote. “It is the defense, not the court, who has assumed that the defendant belongs in that undefined group.”

[...]

“The court did state that the former president was free at the time of Priola’s sentence — an undisputed fact upon which Priola had relied for her mitigation argument — but it went no further,” she wrote in her ruling Wednesday. “To extrapolate an announcement of defendant’s guilt from the court’s silence is to adopt ‘hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious’ perspective rather than a reasonable one.”

[...]

Chutkan noted that the appeals court has declined to order a judge’s recusal in far more pointed circumstances than the ones alleged by Trump and his lawyers.

  Politico