This is a trial without a jury, thus dependent upon the unbiased assessment of the judge. He is clearly biased, and that this woman is his primary law clerk is objective evidence of this. Outing this serves a purpose.
If she had directly spoke against trump then it would absolutely be substantial and straight up bias. What you are implying is that court officers and judges are not allowed to even belong to or support a political party as individuals off the clock. I know we would be completely against this perspective if the tables were turned and the dems were claiming this against a Republican judge and Republican court officer based on this very same “evidence” that is not at all “solid” enough to be substantial. Unfortunately they are allowed individual freedom of speech rights also just as we would expect for ourselves in the same situation.
I’m just saying that before we yell bombshell or smoking gun it really needs to be an irrefutable bombshell or smoking gun or we are just making ourselves look foolish and sensationalistic... Being selective and sensationalistic against freedom of speech is what the communists do. This is what they are trying to do to Trump by gagging him. But give them enough rope without sensationalistic fanfare and sooner or later they will indeed become overconfident and utter words that are truly substantial and irrefutable.