Because news outlets are not always great at this, here is Sidney Powell's recusal motion. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.261.0_1.pdf

Sidney Powell alleges that Judge Flynn should be recused because he said unflattering things about her client while he was sentencing him for a felony.

She alleges that he said these things because of Rachel Maddow, and not because of the facts before him.

Considering an amicus brief? That's a recusaling.

Reading an article by a guy who knows a guy? You'd better BELIEVE that's a recusaling.

Gotta note here that the DC Circuit specifically considered the argument that reading amicus briefs and appointing Judge Gleeson and being a party was recusable, and rejected them.

As the DC Circuit points out, Sidney Powell is complaining almost exclusively about judicial rulings and things that Judge Sullivan learned from presiding over this case, and that's not a good basis to recuse.

Powell argues that Judge Sullivan erred in hiring an attorney. But then kind of forgets all about that and starts talking about Russiagate and moving to strike responses from Strzok.

It's weird, y'all.

Like, what, precisely, is the complaint about the judge hiring this attorney? Did Powell ever bother to move to disqualify her if there was a conflict of interest?

But also, a lot of this stuff happened in May, and waiting even two weeks may make a motion to recuse untimely.

Again, Powell complains that the trial court made an improper Brady ruling, and again, I'll point out that the remedy for a bad order is an appeal of that order, not a recusal of the judge.

But also, you have to love this. She moves to recuse Judge Sullivan for not agreeing with her on the MAGNITUDE of the Brady evidence, which she says, without argument, is worse than in Ted Stevens' famous case.

Powell argues that judged moved too slowly on the case, but I'm not sure how a litigated recusal motion is going to speed things up, given that he has to rule on it before deciding the motion to dismiss.

Okay, now we move on to judicial comments, where the bias is "palpable." Judge Sullivan may have criticized Sidney Powell by asking her about her contact with the AG's office on behalf of Flynn, before she represented Flynn.

Assuming that Judge Sullivan has discretion to deny a motion to dismiss if her perceives political favoritism or corruption, which I'm not sure of, it would seem relevant whether there was political contact behind the scenes.

Anyway, Powell then claims it was recuseable for the judge to suggest, through his questioning and tone of voice, that there it was improper for her to privately discuss this case with the President.

This bias is not obvious to the "left," though, so she doesn't argue it.

Sidney Powell then complains that Judge Sullivan "tortured" law and procedure, but again, that is complaining about judicial rulings. She refers to the judge's rulings as "straws."

Straw 1: she thinks sentencing hasn't started yet.

Straw #2, which is also confusingly subsection (c), alleges that Judge Sullivan shouldn't have asked them to seek reconsideration. It's not clear to me why that was wrong, in light of Powell consistently arguing that his rulings were mistaken.

Powell then very vaguely references Judge Flynn "scraping the bottle of the barrel" by pursuing further prosecution.

But it looks like what she is actually referencing is that Flynn promised to testify against his business partner, then didn't, and Judge Sullivan noticed.

You can look as hard as you want, folks, but there is no straw #4. Maybe the number is bad luck. We jump straight to straw #5. Judge Sullivan should not have asked whether he had to dismiss with prejudice.

Again, no argument why this was an improper question.

Straw #6: Please stop mentioning that my client pleaded guilty twice.

As far as I know, that's the sort of thing that judges often mention quite a bit, but Powell argues that it's recuseable.

The motion to recuse then turns into a request for documents, which seems like the sort of thing you should file separately.

She is seeking, basically, all attorney-client conversations between Wilkenson and the judge.

I wonder if a privilege might apply.

There's an argument section but, don't worry, it contains almost no legal authority.

Basically, she guesses that the judge read a news article, and that's why he appointed Judge Gleeson, and that indicates bias.

No argument required because it's "obvious."

Then, a LOT of pages arguing that it was improper to appoint Judge Gleeson or ask for en banc review, which the DC Circuit already specifically rejected.

I am just going to leave this tortured baking metaphor because it's the only entertaining part.

Finally, the conclusion, which restates for like the 50th time in this brief that the appearance of impropriety is enough for recusal.