They include pictures to show that the clerk is "co-judging" the case.

From the brief:

"As these photographs reflect, the Principal Law Clerk is given unprecedented and inappropriate latitude. Indeed, before the Court rules on most issues, the Court either pauses to consult with her on the bench or receives from her contemporaneous written notes."

As evidence that everyone, even people who don't like Trump, thinks it is biased, they quote the National Review.😂

2/

I included a screenshot to show the bold and italics.

Then of course they talk about her personal social media accounts and a picture of Schumer.

Their argument is:
(1) She is acting like a co-judge, therefore,
(2) anything she does in her personal life is as if she is a judge in the case.

Wrong, and wrong.

This whole thing is for the Court of Right Wing Public Opinion.

That way, when he loses, it will be because the Judge Hates Trump.

3/

Here we have something unusual: As evidence, we get statements from Trump's lawyers.

So . . . the lawyers are acting witnesses offering testimony?

"Your honor, this whole trial is unfair. I can prove it! My lawyer said so! I'd like to enter his testimony as evidence."

Then of course they bring in the unfairness of the gag order. Again their assumption is that she isn't staff. She's a co-judge.

They looked up all of her political contributions.

4/

Someone asked: At what point is a motion so ridiculous that it gets the lawyer who filed it disbarred?"

Disbarred would require knowingly (and probably repeatedly) lying.

Sanctions can happen for frivolous filings, but this is rare in criminal cases or a cases when the government is going after an individual.

Because of the power imbalance, defendants have a lot of latitude.

Most criminal appeals in CA lose. I think the success rate is about 5%. Motions for mistrial are probably similar.

6