Below is my column in The Messenger on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the motion by Special Counsel Jack Smith to curtail the appellate review of Donald Trump’s claim of immunity. While denounced by many in the media, it was not just a predictable but principled decision to stick with regular order in the consideration of such appellate issues. For too many legal experts, Trump offers the release of rage and the ability to adopt of the same dismissive, cavalier attitude of others when it comes to legal rights.
Long civil libertarians can experience the momentary freedom from the confines of blind justice and due process. They can just vent and demand abridged appeals for a presumed guilty defendant. They can embrace broad interpretations of criminal provisions and narrow interpretations of constitutional rights. Years of circumscribed restraint can be set aside for a cathartic demand for disqualification and incarceration. The Supreme Court, however, resisted such demands in a decision that declined to create a fast-track to favor the Special Counsel.
Here is the column:
The decision on Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court to deny a motion for expedited appeal is not ordinarily a matter for exhaustive media coverage. However, if the Trump name appears in the caption of a case, many legal experts suddenly jettison all due process concerns or sense of restraint. That is particularly true when the denial could — as here — prove highly beneficial to Donald Trump.
The denial very likely ends the effort by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith to put Trump on trial just before the March 5 Super Tuesday primary elections, and it could well result in a trial after next November’s general election.
Smith was able to get D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to shoehorn the trial into a small window in March 2024. At the time, some of us stated that we were skeptical whether Smith could hold to that date in light of the novel constitutional and evidentiary issues in the case.
Even with the expedited review of the D.C. Circuit appellate court with an oral argument scheduled for Jan. 9, it will take time to issue an opinion. Trump then has a right to seek review with the full court in an en banc petition. That could easily take weeks, even on an expedited basis. It would then have to be appealed to the Supreme Court for a full briefing and argument.
That schedule would likely approach or pass the March date. Assuming Smith prevails in every review, the pretrial proceedings still would have to resume after the case is returned to Judge Chutkan. That could easily push any potential trial to within 60 days of the general election — a period in which the Justice Department has historically avoided prosecutions under a long-standing policy to prevent influencing elections.
Ironically, Judge Chutkan ruled against Trump on immunity and the scheduling by insisting that he should be treated no differently from ordinary citizens. That is precisely what the Supreme Court just did. It refused to take away an appeal that most ordinary defendants could expect from the courts.
Once the Court’s rejection became known on Friday, the coverage was full of anger and accusations. Before the ruling, many legal experts praised Smith and supported the effort to cut short Trump’s right to appeal. Just a day before the Court’s decision to turn down Smith, legal expert Dave Aronberg declared on MSNBC that “the Supreme Court seems to be willing to hopscotch over the appellate court. Jack Smith is calling Trump’s bluff.”
It did not exactly work out that way.
Although the justices’ actual vote on the motion is not known, commentators immediately declared that conservatives on the Court had rendered a politically calculated opinion to spare Trump. A typical take appeared on Vox, where senior correspondent Ian Millhiser referred to “the GOP-controlled Supreme Court” and that three justices are Trump appointees, in order to paint the decision as nothing more than a rigged process.
The decision, however, stuck with the regular order of appeals used for defendants. The extraordinary act would have been for the Supreme Court to allow Smith to bypass the court of appeals for no other reason than his insistence that the case is hugely important.
It is clear, of course, that the case is important — but the question is why such weighty issues should be given less judicial scrutiny due to that importance.
A full appeal can produce concessions or admissions by a party in the course of arguing the issues. It creates a full appellate record that is considered by the Supreme Court, along with the trial record. So far, just one judge has ruled on this matter. The D.C. Circuit adds at least three — and potentially more — appellate judges as part of the standard review process.
If anything, Smith has an advantage before the D.C. Circuit. Notably, while two of the three judges were appointed by President Joe Biden, much of the media does not refer to the panel as “Democratic-controlled.”
Every defendant is entitled to due process, including a full opportunity of appellate review absent a set of narrow, expedient circumstances. This was not one of those. Smith never actually explained why the trial is so urgent that the defendant should be denied one of two courts for appellate review. The assumption is that Smith’s urgency is to convict Trump before the 2024 election for the benefit of voters.
That, of course, would overturn the long-standing Justice Department policy to avoid even the appearance of trying to influence elections.
The other obvious concern is that, if the March trial date is lost, it may be difficult to try the case before November’s general election. And if Trump were to be elected as president, a new attorney general might scuttle Smith’s investigation or Trump might grant himself a presidential pardon.
However, those are concerns that no judge should ethically consider.
That is why some of us said in advance that the Supreme Court should reject this motion, as it did on Friday. Regardless of who this decision benefits, the question is what due process demands — regardless of the defendant.
Nevertheless, the question posed by legal analysts like Vox’s Millhiser is whether the Supreme Court will “further sabotage Smith’s case by [keeping] the prosecution on pause while it reviews the D.C. Circuit’s decision.”
Perish the thought.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Jonathan: DJT was not into the Christmas spirit yesterday. In a slew of posts it was not goodwill to all. Here is a sampling from his 6 posts yesterday:
—“Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Biden’s ONLY HOPE. Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic…with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT…MAY THEY ROT IN HELL…”
—It’s hard to have a truly great Christmas when you have a Crooked and incompetent President who wants to put his Political Opponent in jail…We are in a fight of our lives to save our County from MADNESS & DOOM…”
You get the flavor of DJT’s posts. For him this holiday is all about DOOM and GLOOM. Probably for good reason because DJT knows the wheels of justice are finally closing in on him.
It was quite different in our home yesterday. Although out family is scattered around the countryside we were able bring most of the family together for a Christmas dinner. For those who couldn’t come we Sciped. My wife out-did herself with a prime rib (bone in) roast, roasted potatoes and asparagus and a homemade pumpkin pie. She beamed when every at the table toasted her. The only discordant moment was when Uncle Fred tried to talk about DJT. Everyone else shouted: “Shut up Fred, we don’t want to hear about Trump tonight!”. It was a time for celebration…not MADNESS & Doom”.
Dennis
How did your nephew enjoy the cornholing you gave him? Did he squeal or did the ball gag you gave him do the trick, so no one else would hear?
“The only discordant moment was when Uncle Fred tried to talk about DJT.”
Well, we know this whole charade is a lie. There is NO WAY that TDS Dennis went a whole afternoon without talking about Trump. In fact, we can rest assured that most of his gifts to family were emblazoned with Fani Willis, Jack Smith, or Leticia James likenesses.
You need to make your tall tales more believable Dennis. This one is right up there with “AR-5’s ruin the meat”.
REGARDING ABOVE:
Dennis has also told us he is a Jew, a Republican, and married with children. And yet, he managed to meet with Svelaz, Wally, Bob, Bill G, Sammy and even Gigi (who goes both ways) these past 4 years to cornhole me at the bath houses of West Hollywood. It will surprise no one to learn that Dennis was not able to perform as the braggart he is. Not only is he not hung, as he claimed on Grindr, but he has a micro-🍆, and a big phat 🍑. This explains why I rant on here 25/8. Dennis has taken my “power bottom” title from me, what a skanky bltch that he is.
I’m gonna split a rib here. LMAOOOOOOO
Dennis couldn’t attend a funeral without talking to the widow about DJT.
LMAO
“My wife out-did herself with a prime rib (bone in) roast, roasted potatoes and asparagus and a homemade pumpkin pie.”
Seems like a pretty low bar. Regretting your choice of wife? I guess since she is tolerant of your fondness for little boys, you did alright.
Paul Broca a French neurologist theorized that damage to inferior frontal gyrus, and the precentral gyrus, in the left cerebral hemisphere, may result in, restriction of speech output to short, ungrammatical sentences: ‘Broca’s aphasia’. Additionally, Carl Wernicke a German neurologist, postulated that damage to the left cerebral hemisphere resulted in defective comprehension in writing and speech, and use of non-grammatical words with empty meanings: ‘Wernicke’s aphasia’.
I only cite these two neurologists to gain an understanding of the actions taken by the Democrats!
And of course, to add a little levity/triviality to this utter nonsense of the absurd pursuit of President Trump, maybe Kafka was clairvoyant “The Trail”.
As the father of a catastrophic ischemic left hemispheric stroke victim who suffers from “global” aphasia, I can tell you that his reading and writing skills are unaffected. Converting thought to vocal output is the crux of the difficulty speaking. Interestingly enough, when the process of idk, “concentration” (for lack of a better term) is removed, speech flows normally. For instance, when he reads aloud from written text or sings a song that he knows by heart, the words flow out unabated.
What libtards suffer has little in common. Except this. They have little desire to stop and think about what they are saying (or typing), and minus that “concentration”, the turds just flow right out.
Take Svelass, who earlier, in defense of his indefensible lie said this
“Money and gifts going to family are not official acts with regard to Joe Biden.”
LMAO he just drops that turd with zero thought. No one ever argued that the quid WAS the quo.
Svelaz is confused, for sure.
You should just understand that Trump has no rights because he is the Democrats bad guy devil man. Don’t you realize that he’s gonna put you all back in chains? Anyone who doesn’t see that this is strictly a political trial has blind bats in his belfry. The trial is perfectly planned to come to its predetermined conclusion just before the primaries. They influenced the 2020 election so why would one not assume that they would do the same in 2024. The fangs of the frightened rabid animals are coming out in full force. Rabid as in going out of their rabid ass minds and the Constitution be damned.
Trump has the same rights as anyone else in the U.S.
TiT,
Amazing all the “norms” the Democrats were going to restore once Biden was in office.
Looking at the Biden admin, there is anything but normal about it.
Same goes for holding to “norms” when it comes to getting Trump. Then all those”norms” get thrown out the window.
“Amazing all the “norms” the Democrats were going to restore once Biden was in 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞.”
That’s because Biden isn’t in Office per se.
He just a book marker for the 46th Presidency of the United States.
The Deep State is in ‘𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞’.
Actually Obama is in his 3rd term as President. He, and his minions, are pulling the strings. I doubt if Old Joe knows what day of the week it is.
Jonathan
Did you know that Dennis gave his 11 year old nephew a ball gag for Christmas?
Jonathan: I didn’t see all the “rage” by legal experts you claim after SCOTUS rejected Jack Smith’s emergency appeal on the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. In fact, there was a general and sober consensus of most legal commentators that the 6-3 right-wing majority on the Court would hang its hat on the normal appeal process rather than squarely dealing with the issue.
And there is distinct scenario in which Judge Chutkan’s trial could occur and be decided well before the November election. Oral arguments before the DC Court of appeals are set for Jan. 9. Many legal experts predicted the DC Court will rule against DJT within days–not weeks. DJT will immediately appeal to SCOTUS. Considering the issue of presidential criminal immunity is such a huge issue it is unlikely the Court would put the case on a slow track. In Gore v. Bush in 2000 the Court ruled within 72 hours.
If SCOTUS were to rule against DJT the case would immediately go back to Judge Chutkan who who, undoubtedly, would have have to reschedule her original March 4 trial date–maybe a delay of a month or so. That means the trial could be completed and a jury verdict well before the election.
The real irony is DJT’s opposition to Jack Smith’s request for an expedited hearing by SCOTUS. If DJT really thought he had a compelling argument for absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution you would think he would have joined Jack Smith’s appeal. Instead, he told the SC “haste makes waste”. DJT knows he has a weak case and wants to delay, delay and delay to avoid accountability.
And you seem to back DJT saying, as you did in a previous column, that “if Trump were elected as president, a new attorney general might scuttle Smith’s investigation or Trump might grant himself a presidential pardon”. That’s exactly would do if re-elected! But be careful what you wish for. That would be unprecedented in the history of the Republic and an end to the rule of law. Is that something you really devoutly wish for?
Poor Dennis. He sees his dreams vanishing before his eyes. He knows how this next election goes and he is terrified. There aren’t enough mules to stop this, so he wants the courts to do it. Funny how all left wing nut job judges are beyond reproach but conservatives are just activists. LMAO at his childish jiberrish.
Dennis please tell us your maximum age for a male consort. Some have said it’s 14 but that’s not been verified.
Someday, Dennis is just going to have to admit that Professor Turley is a somebody and that he’s a nobody.
You don’t know this narcissist well, i see.
“DJT will immediately appeal to SCOTUS.”
He seeks delay, so unless the DCCA chooses not to stay the ruling pending appeal, he’s much more likely to wait til the last minute before requesting an en banc rehearing and then doing the same before asking SCOTUS to grant cert.
Also, depending on the DCCA ruling, SCOTUS might not grant cert.
Anonymous: I tried to keep it simply for the uninformed on this blog. But you’re right. If the DC court of Appeals rejects DJT’s appeal, which I think they will do, he could request en banc consideration. That would cause further delay but I doubt that would change the outcome. And I doubt SCOTUS would deny cert. The Court knows a lot is riding on this case. If the DJT supporters on the Court deny cert. it immediately goes back to Judge Chutkan. I don’t think they want that.
I doubt that they think Presidents should be able to commit crimes with impunity, so I can imagine them denying cert and leaving it to the trial jury to determine whether Trump committed the alleged crimes. Time will tell.
Steaming turd^^^^
Coprophilic commenter^^^^^
kunt^^^^
+100 he’s a kunt
+100
Where Presidential politics is considered, Democrats ended “the rule of law” a long time ago.
Edwardmahl,
I think their preferred phrase is, “By any means necessary.”
That would include ending “the rule of law.”
Hi Dennis: Turley “wishes for” whatever he’s paid to “wish for”. My only criticism of you is that you keep treating Turley like he’s a rational person with a point of view instead of a paid pundit who has sold his credentials to alt-right media. So, you try to reason with him. There’s no reasoning with Turley–he sold his reason a long time ago, along with his bona fides.
P.S.: we also had prime rib yesterday, with twice-baked potatoes, broccoli and strawberry cheesecake. Happy New Year!
Gigi you had a steaming turd and a side of f*cktard.
+100
Svelass, own your most recent turd before you enthrall us with more of you brilliant commentary.
That is why it comes down to knowledge. Under federal case law, money and gifts going to one’s family is often treated as a benefit for the purposes of corruption or bribery.
—Jonathan Turley
“Used to be. Not any more thanks to the McDonell case where the Supreme Court narrowed down the definition of bribery. Turley seems to keep forgetting that for the benefit of his deluded readers.”—-Svelass
Please cite for us ANY reference whatsoever, in the McDonnell ruling, with regard to gifts to family being treated as a benefit.
If not, we know who is deluded.
Please cite the words regarding the gifts to family.
LIAR
It would appear YOU can’t read. I even bolded it for you.
McDonnell was strictly about what constitutes an official act. Turley does not mention that in the quote YOU referenced.
Keep twirling, turd layer.
Cite the wording to substantiate your claim that McDonnell made gifts to family “used to be” or “not any more”
Do it coward. Or admit you can’t.
“Money and gifts going to family are not official acts with regard to Joe Biden.”
LMAO LMAO LMAO
Did you really just say that??? Money and gifts are the benefit in EXCHANGE for the official act, you nincompoop.
McDonnell had nothing to do with the quid (gifts) and did not narrow the definition of that. It dealt entirely with quo (official act). Period.
“Uh duh dup money and gifts are not official acts”…No sh!t, Sherlock. LMAO
Stop making stupid statements and CITE the ruling. Or just admit you’re full of Schiff again.
The courts should follow the law – period. The only time it should not is if there is a time critical exigent circumstance like a pending execution or, in the Colorado ballot case, an event who’s date is set in the Constitution and the outcome of which would be adversely affected by the court NOT acting.
Related but a little O-T: Isn’t the double jeopardy question more important than the immunity issue and worthy of a full full typically months (even years) long refer by the appeals court and then SCOTUS. Or has that issue been previously settled in some impeachment of a Federal judge somewhere along the line?
There is no double jeopardy question. Congress is the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
It has not been settled.
Related but a little O-T: Isn’t the double jeopardy question more important than the immunity issue and worthy of a full full typically months (even years) long refer by the appeals court and then SCOTUS. Or has that issue been previously settled in some impeachment of a Federal judge somewhere along the line?
All that I am going to add to this is the fact that if Trump and McConnell hadn’t been in place between 2016-2020 there would have been a much different result. But of course, I forget the obvious, if Trump had not been in office, there would never have emerged that chronic mental illness known as TDS.
You don’t give Harry Reid his due. Bwahahahahahahahaa
Eat it libtards
The judicial system has run amok by adopting the presumption of guilt before trial and this is a violation of constitutional order! It is not unusual for prosecutors to portray guilt however it is abhorrent for judges to presume guilt rather than innocence until proven guilty. We now have at least 2 courts that have blatantly violated this principle, NY and CO, in the Trump “trials”. The single judge in NY convicted Trump of overvaluing his properties before the start of the trial- they are only conducting a trial to determine penalties. In CO the panel of judges has convicted Trump of insurrection without observing he has never been charged by any prosecutor of insurrection. These actions are both pathetic and appalling!!! And the left states that Trump will destroy democracy? When it is clear that the Marxist left is the author of the end of democracy.
There was a trial in CO and NY.
no, there wasn’t
Yes, there was. Both were bench trials (no jury), but bench trials … are trials, and pretty common at that.
Trump was not on trial in CO
So no, there wasn’t
There was a 5 day trial in CO and Trump was an intervenor and presented his case to the judge.
LMAO uh huh
Like I said, no trial of Trump
Republicans should convene a Nuremberg Trial to try all the FASCIST Democrats throughout government!
You fight fire with fire. You don’t GIVE Fascist quarter….The Neville Chamberlain method to APPEASE Fascist Germans in 1930’s DOESN’T WORK!
We need to JAIL Fascist Democrats by the THOUSANDS…Russian Hoax, Trump Persecutors, people who cover up Bidens and other government officials and their families CRIME of SELLING government(eg 50 intel officials who OPENLY LIED that the Biden Laptop was Russian), organizers of BLM riots, Jan 6th entrapments, open border, etc
BY THE THOUSANDS!
Small Government Republicans and Trump aren’t OUR problem…Democrats and RINOs aren’t!
Trump, “The Great Revealer”. First he successfully got the MSM to drop their false claims of neutrality, now he’s gotten the Democrats in the legal system (attorneys and judges) to shed any facade of neutrality. Love him or hate him, history will show that he was the final nail in the coffin of the multitude of liberals in society that for decades claimed to be unbiased. For that, any free thinker who wants truth should be grateful.
Dan, just to expand a bit on your assessment let’s expose how our political leaders and global elites for the last 50 years have sold out our country for power and wealth.
Social Security and Medicare programs out of control
Totally broken immigration system which is now a total invasion which is estimated to cost 5 trillion dollars over next 10 years
Debt is now 34 trillion dollars and increasing roughly 200 – 250 billion dollars per month, no sense of urgency to bring our spending under control
An incoherent energy policy just convert all vehicles to EV, no mention on where all our electricity will come from without coal and natural gas not to mention precious metals for batteries
China policy is now totally passive
Smith was a PRosecutor/Special Council out of control, making demands, violating rules/privacy/ a BULLY, spoiled brat until he gambled and tried to do an end around of the process, went to the Supreme Court and Ran into a SO:ID LEGAL WALL and now he has to wait for the process to unfold as it was designed, no special case. Eventually it will go to the Supreme Court. But will the trial go forward with all the Supreme Court runlings on this case, J 6th cases which has direct effect on Smith case. If delyaed until 2024 and Trump wins then Jack is out of a job or no money or both.
Here is the sum total of the Court’s rejection:
“The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.”
I gather that such decisions don’t usually come with an explanation. Is that correct?
That is correct.
D: Thanks.
Daniel, not sure if you saw my response to your question “where is the State Department document linking the removal of Shokin to the granting of the loan guarantee?” and the Shokin affidavit in the other column.
The link below gives an excellent timeline to the whole sordid tale, with links to the documents. Everything is going along fine until about November, when Biden makes a sudden shift and focuses on the prosecutor. Yet even the “talking points” memo does not link Shokin’s firing to the $1B. In fact, the same email contains the itinerary, which specifically states “you will affirm the $1B loan guarantee”. No you may, not you could, you WILL.
Note that even in the January 2016 memo, the IPC is still not calling for the ouster of Shokin, just demands regarding the IG.
Lets not forget what Archer told Tucker regarding the pressure Zlochevsky was getting from Shokin. Claims that he tip toed around in his testimony, for fear of being implicated in the bribery.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hdfeds-urged-biden-give-ukraine-loan-guarantee-he
That’s irrelevant to my question to Daniel, and since you aren’t Daniel, you cannot answer for him.
I can post whatever I like, and you can read it or not. The answer to Daniel’s question is in that link.
Your question indicated you still don’t have a clue about what transpired, since when you originally posted your response to Daniel, I gave the source information that you conveniently left out.
There is no state department or any other document linking the Shokin firing to the loan guarantee, only documents to the contrary.
So yes, you have every right to remain ignorant.
As I pointed out to Daniel, there is testimony about classified documents. You cannot possibly have read them, so your claim that “There is no state department or any other document linking the Shokin firing to the loan guarantee, only documents to the contrary” is ignorant. I normally ignore you because you’re a troll, and I will now return to ignoring you. Because you’re a troll, no doubt you will respond with more insults. Bye.
Trolls log on with the name Anonymous, so your projection holds no water.
I read the documents you posted. I’d already seen and read them. One of them contained the instructions I quoted. That he was to confirm the loan guarantees, not threaten to withhold them. But you left that out, didn’t you?
The rest is what is irrelevant, rendered even more so by the documents linked to in the link I provided. We know that there is evidence that Biden made a push to link Shokin. Archer testified to that “spin”. It never came from above.
I’m sorry I spoiled your little party. Crying about it won’t help.
Rule breaking and shortened review is the characteristic of legislatures. Courts should follow proper order and allow the appellate review process to proceed thru their set order. We often decry the rush to judgement that too often occurs when a defendant is unpopular. Better to go slow and overturn every rock and follow the order. Speedy trials are desired but accuracy and having all the facts is even more important.
The appellate process is the whole process towards making a decision that follows the law and the constitution. Best to stick with that for all of our sakes, right or left. And if it means it really enrages the hateful left and their rage politics, all the better. I would prefer a thoughtful process where every argument is entertained and studied. All the better to make judges more comprehensive and show logic. Then we would have less of this law fare that the progressive left is pushing. If someone is pushing me towards the noose or a lethal injection I would much prefer that they have followed proper order and form and no shortcuts. Just to be sure.
According to Democrats Trump is the democratic village that must be destroyed in order to save the democratic village.
Does anyone know the standards appellate courts apply when deciding whether or not to grant en banc review?
Is this what you’re asking about: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35
Trump is the most investigated man in our history [[& cleared of impeachments, the egregious Russia Hoax -Hillary should be tried for instigating this nonsense- and many of these other judicial farces. I assume the left sincerely fears this man & what he stands for [America 1st] which makes me a: Support him more b: Fear the 2-tiered ‘justice’ system we now have.
“Long civil libertarians–”
That they never progressed beyond civil showed a weakness