Courts, Criminal law, International, Lawyering

What if Jack Smith Held a Trial and No One Came?

In 1966, Charlotte E. Keyes wrote a famous article for McCall’s magazine titled “Suppose They Gave a War and No One Came.” Special Counsel Jack Smith may be contemplating the same fate.

Putting the tongue-in-cheek title aside, the odds are that some people will come to any trial of President Donald Trump. After all, a lot of people have to come from the judge to the jurors and counsel. However, Smith has had an ominous week that could severely complicate his plans for convicting Donald Trump before the election. Moreover, a trial after the election could mean no trial at all.

Before this week, Smith found himself on the losing end of the schedule in Florida in his prosecution of Trump for his retention of classified documents. Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a trial for May 20, 2024, but that could easily move with additional delays or appeals in the case.

I have always viewed that case to be the strongest against Trump, but the huge number of classified documents have (as predicted) slowed the prosecution. Despite Smith’s pushing for a pre-election trial, his structuring of the charges undermined that schedule.

Smith then pushed hard for a pre-election trial in the January 6th case in Washington where he seemed to have a supportive judge in Judge Tanya Chutkan who shoehorned the start just before the Super Tuesday elections.

Now, however, Judge Chutkan has been forced to stay the case indefinitely pending the appeal of the presidential immunity claim made by Trump. The matter is now before both the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave Trump until December 20th to respond to Smith’s request for an expedited review — leapfrogging over the D.C. Circuit.

Smith’s filing conveys priority, if not a necessity, in trying Trump before the election. The Supreme Court may not share that sense of urgency. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has preferred to wait to allow appellate courts to render decisions. Since a conviction will not make Trump ineligible to run for the presidency, the question is why the March date should short circuit the review process.

If the Supreme Court ultimately does not rule on the merits, the period for review would easily supplant the trial schedule since an appeal could be taken to the entire D.C. Circuit (en banc) and then to the Supreme Court.

That did not change the March 4 trial date, but it could well make that date unworkable if the appeals drag on.

Then to make the week complete, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. Fischer.  That case turns on the proper interpretation of the obstruction provision under Section 1512(c)(2).

Fischer was charged with obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and based solely on his trespass in the Capitol.

A ruling in his favor could effectively cut away half of the case against Donald Trump. Among the four counts brought by Smith, Trump is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) (Count Two) and  18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) (Count Three).

If those two counts fell to the wayside, Smith would be left with a count on conspiracy to defraud the United States (Count One) and conspiracy against rights (Count 4). Those counts contain other challengeable elements which would have to be appealed after any conviction.

At some point, the mad rush for a March trial will look illogical and gratuitous if key legal issues remain unresolved  and pre-trial motions and discovery remain incomplete in February.

The problem for Smith is that a trial after the election could mean no trial at all. If Trump is elected, he could give himself a preemptive self-pardon, though some disagree with this view. Moreover, the new Attorney General could scuttle or undermine the prosecution.

In other words, it is possible that Jack Smith might never see a jury in either case.

That would still leave the New York and Georgia cases, which are not subject to presidential pardons. However, those cases (particularly the one in New York) have their own challengeable elements.

None of this means that Trump is out of the woods. He will continue to face a daunting daisy-chain of civil and criminal cases around the country. Moreover, it is not clear how the schedule will shake out with both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court giving expedited attention to the immunity question. He could still face at least one federal trial before election day.

However, Smith must be wondering if, assuming the schedule breaks in favor of Trump, he would be holding an empty sack come January 2024.

245 thoughts on “What if Jack Smith Held a Trial and No One Came?”

  1. And here we go. Turley lobbies and works behind the scenes for Trump to be above the law and for Biden to be impeached. No doubt an auspicious and financially rewarding time for Jon. Fox hits on how Trump can delay and possibly remove consequences for openly criminal behavior, Biden impeached for Hunter’s dick pics. In the investing world this is known as a strangle option strategy. In the betting world it’s considered being a bookie.

    Party on, Jon. This could lead to a fine retirement package. But I’m still wondering whether you were confering with Bannon et al in the war room at that hotel prior to 1/6.

    Eb

    1. Thanks so much for posting this. Had to read it a couple times to get my head around it and stretch my mind…, which is actually wildly refreshing. It makes Turley’s take appear just slightly above coloring book level, as well as make clear that Turley’s blog is mostly concerned with PR versus accurate portrayal of legal issues. Then again, Turley makes his living through PR campaigns these days, so there’s that.

      Eb

      1. “Had to read it a couple times to get my head around it and stretch my mind…, ”

        Try it sober, [-OH] trader.

        Turley has to keep it simple and you just showed why.

        1. Nah, it just shows my willingness to learn from genuine sources…

          And as far as your insults, look, I played basketball in college and have heard really creative insults hurled loudly at me from the crowd. Many I’d even laugh at because they were funny. Yours don’t rank up there in that respect.

          Eb

          1. “Nah, it just shows my willingness to learn from genuine sources…”

            LMAO, like factcheck.org

              1. Yep, you like facts like 7.6% CPI in Jan 2021.

                Just lurking, waiting for your next lie. Shouldn’t take long.

                1. Cumulative cpi over the course of trump’s term as the factcheck.org I posted states, yes. Does your reading comprehension disability prevent you from being able to understand that reality?

                  Eb

                1. The end of my playing career yes. Had a pretty raging painkiller addiction for part of it though.

      2. looks like david brocks cockholsters have added a few numbers to their ranks – congrats on the new job eb, fw, anon.

        Your attempts to Dismiss, Distort, Distract, & Dismay, like efforts to jail Trump are frivolous, childish, boorish, laughable, and counter-productive. You lefties always forget the bottom line, whatever the left sets out to do, the opposite result ensues.

    2. It’s a good essay.

      If I were on the Court I would deny cert at this point. There is no reason for the Court to stretch its standards to ensure that Trump’s trial is concluded before the election. And institutionally, the neutral posture would be to allow the ordinary appellate process to play itself out.

      Vladeck thinks they will grant cert, which requires four votes, in part because they already decided to expedite the decision on that, which required five votes. Why, he asks, would a Justice vote to expedite the decision and then vote to deny cert?

      I can see why the Justices might want to resolve ASAP how the process should unfold in terms of who decides and when but still conclude that the Court should not deviate from standard appellate procedures simply to ensure that the trial can be completed before the election.

      1. Interesting in that no matter where one comes down on it the issue seems to be on some level: how effective is protocol when applied with a character (trump) who has no respect for protocol whatsoever?

        Eb

      2. Add to that the stakes of trump running for president while openly speaking of executing people who once worked for him who are warning of what a second term for him would mean…

        Or threatening to be a dictator for a day when no dictator ever did it for just one day…

        Or openly threatening to suspend parts of the Constitution if not all of it.

        The way trump works is to ‘seed’ his true intentions ahead of time verbally such that when he does them he can just point and say he already said it so therefore it’s not illegal….

        Etc…

        Really interesting conundrum, but to that end, what happened during Watergate provides the roadmap, even with trump’s actions being worse than watergate.

        Eb

        1. there it is!!!! the worse than watergate exclamation!!!

          I saw a montage of MSNBC and CNN clips of about 278 different people using that phrase to describe lets see, the russian hoax, the dossier, the alpha bank, and the pee tape. It was hilarious…you should look it up. I think that Woodward clown was featured most often. He looks like a bobble head doll that just repeats one line.

          1. Nice exclamation points, cap. And you cited several aspects of trump’s term that cumulatively contributed to trump’s far surpassing Watergate during his single term.

      3. “There is no reason for the Court to stretch its standards to ensure that Trump’s trial is concluded before the election.”

        It’s chosen to grant cert prior to judgment in dozens of other cases, so it’s not a stretch. Also, Trump is arguing that he has absolute immunity, and if they grant cert and he wins the case before SCOTUS, there is no trial. You keep assuming he’ll lose before SCOTUS if they choose to hear the case. I assume that too, because he has a weak case, but you’re a Trump fan, so it’s surprising that you also assume he’ll lose.

        1. I’m not assuming that. What I am assuming is that the only way to ensure the trial is completed before the election, if there is to be a trial at all, is for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue quickly. If the Court were indifferent as to when the trial is completed there would be no reason for it to short circuit the appellate process.

          Vladeck says the standard was strictly applied for decades up to 2019 and then more loosely applied. Reverting to the traditional practice would not be difficult, and would maintain neutrality on this highly political question. And if the DC Circuit acts quickly, the Court will hear the case relatively soon anyway.

          1. “If the Court were indifferent as to when the trial is completed there would be no reason for it to short circuit the appellate process.”

            Again, they’ve chosen to grant cert prior to judgment in dozens of other cases. They may wish to decide the question: does a President have absolute immunity for all actions taken while President. The trial is a side-show to that issue. Notice that if they decide in favor of absolute immunity, then Biden is absolutely immune too. I don’t want any President to be absolutely immune, no matter the illegal act, no matter whether they’re acting as a candidate rather than as President. How about you? Do you want all sitting Presidents to have absolute immunity?

            1. SCOTUS can grant cert on an expedited basis – it is NOT the norm. There are very good reasons it is not the norm.
              When they do so, they most typically deal with issues that are allready perfectly clear by precident.
              I am hard pressed to think of an instance in which SCOTUS ganted expedited cert on a complex issue with a little record.
              To the extent that they might, the most likely outcome is to NOT decide the question being raised – but to punt the issue back to the lower courts with some direction as to how to develop a record that would be helpful when the case finally gets before them.

              The “absolute immunity” you are debating is Spin. Unarguably those in government have immunity. There is lots and lots of caselaw regarding that. The immunity is not “absolute” but it is often very strong. Yes Biden would have the same immunity. But he does not face potential criminal cases for actions he has taken as president. And he can not face criminal prosecution for those without first being impeached and removed.

              No president is absolutely immune
              As is typical of left wing nuts, your understanding of the issue is childish and shallow.

              And YES I do want all presidents to have immunity. I do not want foreign countries, or renegade prosecutors using law enforcement to interfere with the running of the country. While I think that Bill Clinton should have been removed for lying under oath twice and mutliple acts of obstruction of justicve, at the same time SCOTUS erred in allowing the Paula Jones lawsuit to proceed while Clinton was president.

              So lets address the actual issues.

              First all government officials are immune for their official actions. There is much debate here as to whether Trump’s actions that are being tried as crimes in both state or federal courts are official actions. The argument that they are is STRONG – though you may disagree. Regardless. Neither SCOTUS nor Chutkan shoudl decide that issue without extensive hearings on the facts and review by multiple appealate courts. This is far from a simple question.

              Next it has been the position of DOJ for atleast 50 years – on that has been followed, That presidents can not be indicted and prosecuted for crimes – atleast not while in office.

              We KNOW that immunity ends if they are impeached and removed.

              But it is a novel question as to whether they can be prosecuted AFTER an impeachment that failed, or just ingeneral after leaving office. Again a reason for fully hearings and following the normal course of the law – not jumping the queue.

              \]

          2. BTW, no, Vladeck did not say that the standard was strictly applied up until 2019. In fact in a tweet, he gave a list of all cases where cert was granted before judgment, and many of them were prior to 2019. He simply noted that it accelerated in 2019.

            2. Actually a discussion of legal issues on a supposed legal blog, totally refreshing!

              Eb

  3. Abbe Lowell, hunters brilliant attorney, says that all the Republicans have is false facts.

    1. Could one of your sock puppets, maybe David Benson, give us the Wikipedia definition of “false facts”?

  4. Jack Smith is the chosen Strike Dog for the Democrat’s “Destroy Trump” mission and he must press on and pursue every angle. He doesn’t care about any criticism and the mainstream media will applaud his every move, however unconventional or bizarre.

  5. In the small mind of Svelass, one shell company equals 20 shell companies.

    Do not reply to his nonsense.

    By the way. I own a shell company. No monies pass thru it to 19 other shell companies and to various family members of mine.

    Svelass, how did that vote go yesterday?

            1. Strange that you mistake amusement for a whine. You might want to get your hearing and reading comprehension checked.

    2. “Republicans allege the presence of shell companies is “proof” that something illegal occurred.”

      Name one Republican who said that. And provide the link to the quote or video.

      LIAR

      1. “Comer and you are just as suspect.”

        Read it again simpleton. The mere presence of a shell company is not suspect. Passing millions of dollars thru them, around them, and to family members is.

        Next?

    3. Wait until the Corporate Transparency Act goes into effect next year. It will make money laundering for LLCs much more difficult.

    4. Estovir, virtually every report on that impeachment inquiry noted (in the headline) that Republicans have NO EVIDENCE.

      2. ‘Reported no evidence’ Yes the same were reporting Trump colluded with Russia. The same reported the laptop was Russia dissinformation.

        There is lots of reporting that is just wrong or lies. Much like all of your comments.

  6. Enjoyed the discussion about Les Miserables. Great book and the more recent film with Hugh Jackman was beautiful as well as a panorama of emotions. The hundreds of men dragging the warship into the dry dock at the first of the film was epic in scale with wonderful music.
    The summary of the legal questions are “everything is up in the air” with almost a multiverse of possible outcomes. We may need Dr. Strange to make a guest appearance with the Professor to explain the eventual outcome.

  7. Jack Smith ought to be prison for abuse of power. America doesn’t rogue prosecutors holding extreme legal views with fanatical partisanship.

  8. So for the first time in a long time we have an actual legal blogpost on this legal blog

    Here’s one question area I have (the separate obstruction case also raises questions) Please explain how this works vis a vis SCOTUS. All SCOTUS is deciding now (response from Trump’s lawyers by 12/20, etc.) is WHETHER to hear Smith’s request to skip over the DC Appeals Court, correct? It’s not actually planning to rule on the issue itself (does a president have immunity while in office) sometime shortly after 12/20 correct?
    So
    – if SCOTUS is against the skip over, the appeal returns to the DC Appeals Court and would go to three judges and then after that maybe (what determines?) to all DC Appeals Court judges
    – if SCOTUS is OK with the skip over, it hears the case sometime in January or February and hands down a ruling in June like in most other cases (cuz otherwise, wouldn’t they be treating one defendant different than all others, something Smith says we shouldn’t do)

      1. You’re not very discerning. If you’d paid attention, you’d know that Dennis byron doesn’t post anything similar to Elvis Bug. They’re on opposite sides politically.

        1. Uh, yea, thats why benson posts wikipedia articles about “Intersex” and claims we can’t use that words become “outdated” and cant be used.

        2. If you were more discerning and paid attention, you’d know that Dennis Byron does not post anything political. Except for occasionally complaining about all you people afraid to use your own names and complaining to the blog owner about all the crap about Hunter Biden (which I stopped doing about 6 months ago), I only post legal questions like the above. No one could possibly know my politics from anything I’ve ever posted here, especially because I haven’t voted in a presidential election since 1992 so I don’t really care for any politicians (pox on all their houses)

    2. “All SCOTUS is deciding now … is WHETHER to hear Smith’s request to skip over the DC Appeals Court, correct?”

      Yes.

      “It’s not actually planning to rule on the issue itself (does a president have immunity while in office) sometime shortly after 12/20 correct?”

      It will presumably rule quickly on whether to expedite the consideration of granting cert, and if it grants cert, it’s entirely possible that it will then rule quickly on the underlying motion. If it didn’t want to rule quickly, then there’s no reason to expedite the motion re: granting cert.

      “what determines?”

      The losing party decides at that point whether to ask for a rehearing en banc or appeals directly to SCOTUS.

      “if SCOTUS is OK with the skip over, it hears the case sometime in January or February and hands down a ruling in June like in most other cases”

      Not necessarily. It sometimes rules quite quickly on cases. There’s a reason that you said “most” and not “all.”

      “otherwise, wouldn’t they be treating one defendant different than all others”

      Nope. Notice that you incorrectly switched from “most” to “all.”

      1. Correction:

        “All SCOTUS is deciding now … is WHETHER to hear Smith’s request to skip over the DC Appeals Court, correct?”

        No. They’re deciding whether to *expedite consideration* of granting or denying cert. They are not yet deciding going to decide whether to grant or denying cert. Either way (expedited or not), they will eventually decide whether to grant or deny cert; the question right now is whether that will happen quickly or on their regular schedule.

    3. I think you are generally correct, but if the Supreme Court decides to hear the merits of the case on an expedited basis they will also likely rule quickly rather than waiting until June.

      I believe the loser at the D.C. appellate level can elect an en banc hearing. I don’t know if there is any discretion in the court to reject that election. I doubt there is any discretion.

      It takes four SCOTUS judges to grant cert. Assuming the three “liberals” vote for it, because they want to jail Trump before the election, it would still require one of the “conservatives”.

      1. “I don’t know if there is any discretion in the court to reject that election.”

        There isn’t. However, the appellate court itself can also independently choose to rehear the case en banc.

        “Assuming the three “liberals” vote for it, because they want to jail Trump before the election, it would still require one of the “conservatives”.”

        You could just as easily write “Assuming at least 4 of the six “conservatives” vote for it, because they want to free Trump up before the election, it doesn’t require any of the “liberals”.”

        As I pointed out to you before (in response to a comment of yours in another column), if Trump believes that he has a good case, the HE should want it decided quickly, because SCOTUS ruling in his favor would end the case, and he could publicly claim vindication during the campaign.

        Then again, perhaps you and he think he has a losing case, and he just wants to drag things out.

      2. And how could that happen, since we’ve heard repeatedly from the lefty trolls on this site that those justices are in trumps pocket

      3. Daniel, To a non lawyer it just seems like there’s two, three, four (that’s what I’m trying to understand) steps before they get to any substance. The talking heads say Smith is trying to speed things up but it seems he’s adding steps that will slow it down?

        That is, even if SCOTUS agrees to skip the question over the Appeals level, it’s going to want the time to do it right and do all the detail arguing and research that the Appeals Court would do. The issue (does a president have immunity while in office) is pretty fundamental (and is the double jeopardy question separate and possibly going to go through this same pattern?)

        Also – to one of your points — wouldn’t the fact that SCOTUS even has gone so far as to tell Trump’s lawyers to do such and such by 12/20 mean there are four votes there to move forward to at least hearing why they should go to the next step. Or are they required to act on Smith’s petition and then required to hear Trump’s lawyers’ opinions on same?

        And if they do not go to the next step NOW (that’s the issue right?) and instead kick it back to the Appeals Court, there is nothing stopping them from going all through this later (presumably to be heard next Fall)

  9. As Steve Vladeck noted, there are “49 times #SCOTUS has granted certiorari “before judgment.” Of particular note:
    “1) Lots of presidential power cases;
    “2) 19 grants since 2/2019 (after *no* grants between 8/2004 and 2/2019)”

    So it won’t be unheard of for SCOTUS to grant cert in the immunity case.

    Also, if Trump truly believes that he’s immune, which would moot the case, he should want this settled sooner rather than later, and he can publicly claim vindication as part of his campaigning. Yet he’s arguing the opposite. Gee, could it be he knows that his argument is a loser?

    As for the rest of JT’s argument, it’s based on many ifs. He unsurprisingly doesn’t consider the if nots.

    1. The DC Appeals Court has granted Smith’s motion for expedited appeal on the immunity case. Trump’s brief is due 12/23, the DoJ’s brief is due 12/30, and Trump’s reply is due 1/2/24. SCOTUS has granted the motion to expedite the hearing about whether to grant cert in the immunity case and has ordered Trump to respond to the petition by next Wednesday.

      Steve Vladeck (UT Austin law prof):
      “Is there an obvious reason why #SCOTUS granted the Fischer January 6 case, but *not* the Lang and Miller cases that were consolidated with it both in the D.C. Circuit and in DOJ’s response? Seems like there’s a clue here about how narrow the Court’s intervention is going to be.
      “And for everyone yelling at me in the replies, I’m not being coy. I *don’t know* why they’d take only Fischer and not the other two, but it suggests that *perhaps* this is not as major an intervention as it’s being portrayed—and is about something narrower in just Fischer’s case.”

    2. Also, if Trump truly believes that he’s immune, which would moot the case, he should want this settled sooner rather than later, and he can publicly claim vindication as part of his campaigning. Yet he’s arguing the opposite. Gee, could it be he knows that his argument is a loser?

      This is a risk/benefit calculation.
      If Smith thought he was going to prevail, he would not need to skip over the appellate court Smith(Obama) needs a pre election trial, to intefer in the election.

      Trump has a different risk benefit calculation.

      He wants the trial delayed. When he wins, the cases all dry up. Many lawyers opined these cases were never to see the trial phase, they are not soundly based on law. The charges were supposed to drive voters away from Trump, but they only added to is political cachet. Because the left has never taken a moment to as the honest question of “Why is Trump here?” If they honestly look at that question, they would have taken a different tack

      2. “He wants the trial delayed.”

        Only if he thinks he’ll lose. Again, if he thinks he’ll win, it’s to his benefit to win quickly and crow about that for months.

  10. Smith’s filing conveys priority, if not a necessity, in trying Trump before the election. The Supreme Court may not share that sense of urgency. …the question is why the March date should short circuit the review process.

    The only thing missing from Biden’s DOJ non-stop theatrics is a Democrat Congresscritter, who slept with a Chinese spy, standing on the Capital steps, orchestrating the First Crack Head Son’s press clown show on Capital Hill to defy a Congressional subpoena. Oh wait.

    1. More precisely, the Senate steps, just out of reach of the house sergeant at arms. Because he is a coward, as well as a liar.

  11. I’m one indictment away from being re-elected. All publicity is good publicity.

  12. So Trump and the Republicans are trying to delay long enough for Trump to cancel his own prosecution. It is amazing how ok Turley is with this. If this works then it would be abuse of power like we have never seen before.

    1. Even bigger than extorting $10M for leveraging $1B to get a prosecutor fired?

      Go Trump go!

    2. Trump has no power and is exercising his constitutional right of appeal.

      You dont name these “Republicans”, but when you do, please explain what power they have in a criminal case and how exactly they are abusing it.

      Or did you just come here this morning to lay another of your steaming turds?

  13. JT, I frankly don’t see any connection between the Fischer case and Trump cases for impeding official proceedings of Congress. Entering the Capitol building during a Stop the Steal demonstration isn’t remotely similar to plotting over 6 weeks to thwart the Presidential transfer of power, including mickeying the Electoral College Count proceeding on Jan 6th to deny Joe Biden his 270 votes. In other words, overturning Fischer does not prejudice the Trump case, as there is thin evidence of intent in Fischer, and an overwhelming evidentiary record of intent in Trump. Heck, Trump boasts about the plot involving Mike Pence in his Ellipse speech — where he says if it works, he’ll remain President.

  14. The what if’s and the persecution will continue until a few honest Americans say no more.

  15. If being good is a Western value, then it is one that must reconsidered. From a Machiavellian/Darwinian perspective, the East will win. The West permits all kinds of things from Easterners that East does not
    permit of Westerners.

    “Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” – Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

    1. “Jack Smith is nothing but a Javert forte.”

      I understand your sentiment.

      But please do not sully the character of Javert or of his creator. Javert is a man of honor, sincerely motivated by a (mistaken) sense of justice. Smith is motivated by a lust for power and a desire to destroy. What he lacks in integrity, he makes up for in mendacity.

      Hugo had too noble of a soul to project a Smith as a villain.

      1. Right, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family vs. plotting to defy the EC votes cast and certified by the 50 states. A petty crime vs. a defiant attempt on the part of a powerful egomaniac to thwart the Constitution to remain in power.

        2. petty crime vs. a defiant attempt on the part of a powerful egomaniac to thwart the Constitution to remain in power.

          written by a paid egomaniac

                1. The establishment in Washington is making Trump look like he’s the victim. They may cook their own goose. What a web they wove.

  17. It’s a sack full of lies, in the meantime we can’t even stop the flow of border jumpers and stop the runaway government spending. Stop focusing on the Trump shiny object and start discussing and debating the really serious problems and fixing them.

    1. They had an orgy with little girls on Epstein’s Island. Since the Democrats are blocking the release of the flight logs to the isle, it would appear that the participants were Democrats…

  19. “Smith then pushed hard for a pre-election trial in the January 6th case in Washington . . .” (JT)

    Let’s see. We’ve already used “51 spies who lie,” Zuckerbucks, mail-in ballots, a compliant media, and pressure on social media companies to influence an election.

    What’s next? I know. Let’s have a D.C. jury decide the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

Comments are closed.