Columns, Courts, Criminal law, Politics

Nightmare Scenario: How a Trump Trial Could Now Run Up to (or Through) the 2024 Election

Below is my column in the Hill on the real possibility of a federal trial of former president Donald Trump just before or even through the 2024 election. The claim that this schedule is the result of treating Trump like other criminal defendants is increasingly dubious given statements of courts and the Special Counsel.

Here is the column:

“This trial will not yield to the election cycle.” Those words of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last year made clear that she will not consider that Donald Trump will likely be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee in setting the schedule for his federal trial in Washington, D.C.

Most recently, in the federal prosecution in Florida, Special Counsel Jack Smith declared that he will not consider himself bound by the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of candidates close to an election.

With the Supreme Court reviewing the immunity question (and a decision not expected until June), a nightmare scenario is unfolding in which Trump could be tried not just before the general election, but actually through November’s election.

Chutkan has insisted that her refusal to consider Trump’s candidacy is simply denying special treatment to the former president. But there is nothing typical about how she and others have handled the case. The fact that Chutkan was pushing for a March trial date shows just how extraordinary her handling has been.

In the D.C. courts, with thousands of stacked up cases, that would be a rocket docket for a complex case of this kind. There are roughly 770,000 pending cases in roughly 100 district courts around the country. The backlog of pending criminal cases in the federal court system increased by more than a quarter in the last five years. Even when defendants plead guilty, criminal cases average 10 months. If a trial is needed, it runs on average to two years, absent serious complications over classified or privileged material. Smith indicted Trump less than a year ago.

At every juncture, Smith has tried to expedite and spur the case along. This has included an attempt to cut off standard appellate options for Trump. It seems as if the entire point is to try Trump before the election.

Smith has offered no reason, other than that he wants voters to consider the outcome of the trial. It is a rare acknowledgement of a desire for a trial to become a factor in an election.

Judge Chutkan has shown the same determination. The judge was criticized for comments she made before any charges were brought that strongly suggested she thought Trump should be criminally charged. Chutkan told one defendant that he showed “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” In another case, Chutkan told the defendant that it was unfair that he might go to prison but “the architects of that horrific event will likely never be charged.”

When asked to recuse herself, Chutkan denied the clear implication of her own words. She insisted that she has not expressly stated that “’President Trump should be prosecuted’ and imprisoned… And the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar.”

Of course, neither the court nor the prosecutors seem willing to apply a similarly deferential view of the meaning of Trump’s words within the context of the case. There, the implications are sufficient for that “one person” described earlier by the court.

Chutkan is now reportedly telling parties in other cases that she will be out of the country in August, and that defendants will have to delay any proceedings in light of her plans…unless she can try Trump. She told lawyers that she will stick with her schedule unless “I’m in trial in another matter that has not yet returned to my calendar.”

Given the apparent motivation of the trial court to try Trump before the election, the only other source of restraint would be the Justice Department itself. Smith, however, has insisted that he will show no such restraint, even if he tries Trump through the election.

In his filings in Florida, Smith insisted that the oft-cited Justice Department policy to avoid such proceedings within 60 days of an election would not be applied in Trump’s case. He insisted that, since everyone knows about the allegations, there would be no harm or foul in holding him for trial for the weeks before the election as his opponent, President Biden, is free to traverse the country campaigning.

Smith’s position was applauded by commentators who had previously invoked the rule to oppose charges that might have helped Trump before prior elections. Take Andrew Weissmann, who served as the controversial top aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Now an MSNBC legal analyst, Weissmann assured viewers that there was no problem trying Trump just before the election because this is just “an internal rule. It is not a law.”

He then added “Second, the rule does not apply! For anyone who has been at the Justice Department, this is such a red herring.” He insisted this is only meant to avoid some “covert cases” being tried “because you don’t want to influence the election when that person — the candidate — doesn’t have an opportunity to get to trial.”

However, when the issue was the possibility of Special Counsel John Durham charging figures in the Russia investigation before the 2020 election, Weissmann and Professor Ryan Goodman wrote a column not only invoking the rule but encouraging prosecutors to refuse to assist Durham.

I have previously written about the ambiguity of this rule and the selectivity of its applications. However, Weissmann and Goodman were adamant that such prosecutions would be dangerous. Even though no actual election candidate would have been charged, they invoked this Justice Department “norm” and declared, “The Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited.”

It is certainly true that these charges have been known for a while, but Trump may not have an ability to present a complete defense before the election. It is also clear that he will have to choose between campaigning for office and defending his liberty.

Moreover, this is the leading candidate for the presidency, and the opponent to the current incumbent. A 2023 poll found that a 47 percent plurality of Americans already believe the charges are politically motivated. That appearance will only worsen as the election approaches, a recognition that should force a modicum of restraint upon both the court and the prosecution. Finally, Smith is referencing the election as the reason to expedite the trial precisely because it may have an influence on voters.

The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is. No one can seriously suggest that Judge Chutkan would be moving other cases or canceling trips in order to shoehorn them into the calendar this year, if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant. Such cases are, after all, notorious for taking years to work out complicated pre-trial matters.

Most citizens already see that reality. State prosecutors in New York and Georgia waited for years to charge Trump, then pushed for expedited schedules in order to try him before the election.

That brings us back to Judge Chutkan’s pledge to “not yield to the election cycle.” Yet the expedited effort of the court seems clearly motivated by the election cycle. She and Smith are depending on the election cycle as they struggle to pull Trump into court at the height of a presidential campaign.

It is a schedule conceived for the “one person” described by Chutkan in the earlier cases. As the calendar continues to shrink, claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

348 thoughts on “Nightmare Scenario: How a Trump Trial Could Now Run Up to (or Through) the 2024 Election”

  1. Turley just made up the part about no trials within 60-days of an election. He may well perceive that Smith has tried to speed up the proceedings to get the trial in before the election. An innocent man would like his name cleared don’t you think? Of course, Turley didn’t mention Trump’s efforts, many of them frivolous, designed to delay the trials. What was once unthinkable is now the plan, should he be elected, Trump will either dismiss charges against himself or give himself a pardon. even Nixon knew better.

    1. Enigma doesn’t mention, or care about, the fact that Smith waited years to bring the case and then wants to expedite it before the election.

      Notice that Smith, and Enigma, one of our more partisan hacks, didn’t want Trump tried too early because they wanted him to be the nominee and if he was convicted a year ago the Republicans might have nominated DeSantis or some other viable candidate.

      1. Smith didn’t wait years. Smith was appointed Special Counselt in November of 2022, and he indicted Trump in August of 2023.

      2. Smith moved very quickly once assigned the case. I can’t disagree the Garland moved slowly, I suspect there never would have been charges except for the mountain of evidence made public by the J-6 House Committee. Trump’s criminality was so obvious it couldn’t be ignored. Trump didn’t announce he was running until it became clear he would be indicted. Wonder what his motive was?

          1. Leftists prefer truth over facts. Just ask Joe Biden. It amazes me how many people cannot see Biden for the grifter, fraud, and liar that he is.

        2. Garland didn’t act slowly.

          “The [DOJ] took overt investigative steps against three of the six alleged co-conspirators identified in Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment in 2021, long before Garland appointed Smith to the case. … In April 2021 — on Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job — the Justice Department obtained a warrant to seize [co-conspirator] Rudy Giuliani’s phones. … Those often ignored early moves against Trump’s co-conspirators — and other investigative developments, such as the purported cooperation of Jan. 6 defendant Brandon Straka, investigative steps implicating Roger Stone, and the prosecution of Alex Jones’ sidekick — go unmentioned in reports that claim Garland delayed the investigation. … A year of pandemic measures created a backlog that delayed not just trials, but also court hearings and grand jury investigations. …
          “According to a filing from Jack Smith, “at least 25 witnesses withheld information, communications, and documents based on assertions of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances where the privilege holder appears to be the defendant or his 2020 presidential campaign.” … Even for witnesses who weren’t lawyers, Trump’s executive privilege claims created delays. … Trump’s co-conspirators plotted their attack on encrypted apps. … One delay that was unnecessary was caused by some of the people who most loudly blamed Garland: the Jan. 6 Committee. DOJ first asked the committee for witness transcripts in April 2022. … those transcripts finally came out in December. … behind every one of those public acts lies a chain of evidence without which Trump would win the case, the hunt for which started well before Smith came along.”
          https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/merrick-garland-isnt-blame-delays-trumps-election-interference-case-rcna141213

    2. Turley didn’t mention Trump’s efforts, many of them frivolous, designed to delay the trials.
      The defendant is afforded the full width and breadth of the law to fashion their defense

      1. Which doesn’t mean some of them weren’t frivolous, like absolute immunity. Not everyone gets to have every appeal, no matter how ridiculous, work its way slowly to the Supreme Court.

      2. How many trump lawyers have been disciplined? I think the number is 17 and counting.

  2. You know for a long time, I really believed that we did get equal justice under the law and that was one of the main things that I loved about our country. That has slowly been chipped away over time as we see Federal Prosecutors like Smith and Weissman railroad other people and corporations into prison as well as bankruptcy and I have seen Director Comey immediately set a trap when the Trump administration first was getting set up.
    Not to mention multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct in state and local courts like LA, Atlanta, D.C. and New York as well as others. The Justice system is sick and dying and it now hitting everyone. It used to previously be just the poor and disadvantaged who got the short end of the stick but instead of improving and bringing all under the protection of justice our system has only grown worse and now everyone is afraid of a justice system that is no longer interested in justice but simply adhering to the punishment and later conviction of anyone out of favor.
    The last time we saw something like this was the early 1950’s and McCarthy but that was a mere dress rehearsal of what we see coming from the left, especially now.
    Prosecutors and judges maybe need to start losing some qualified immunity. If the police can lose their immunity why do we still see prosecutors like Weismann running amuck in the legal system.
    Frankly as a conservative, I would not even want to be charged with jaywalking in New York, D.C. or LA. Or Atlanta or I might be in prison and 1/2 million dollars in the hole for my defense.
    If they can do this to Trump and get away with it, then no one is safe and , as mentioned by an earlier writer, then the only solution might appear to be armed insurrection.
    Prior to the Revolution , one of the most serious breaches of the colonist’s freedoms was removing courts from the colonies and putting them in London and under the king’s justice (sic)

  3. For decades I was an active participant in local, state and sometimes national politics, and until Obama I was a Democrat. As I have watched the “evolution” of Democrat politics since Obama, not only has it caused me to transition away from the Democrat party to the Republican, it increasingly has caused me to fear what Democrats are doing to this country. Among many other things, “lawfare” now is a reality of Democrat politics with the active participation not only of prosecutors but also civil and criminal judges– even federal judges; open borders for illegal immigrants– now called “newcomers” by Democrats– is a conscious Democrat policy to increase the census for Congressional races and hopefully garner more Democrat votes; and Soros backed soft-on-crime DAs and “progressive” city councils are ruining our cities, and in spite of this Democrat Austin just re-elected its Soros DA with a huge margin of votes. Symbolically, the extent to which the Democrat party has dragged us down was shown when President Biden actually apologized to a cold blooded murderer for calling him “illegal” but could not bring himself to apologize to the family of his victim for calling her “Lincoln” instead of her real name. I am sure Democrats will continue to call on me for free legal help for their projects. I used to be able to easily reach across the isle for any good cause. Today, it is different. Whether Democrats are Democrats because they have been overwhelmed by the propaganda like the good Christians in prewar Germany, or because they are true believers, providing help now would make me just another an enabler instead of a good neighbor.

    1. You have forgotten that Trump did everything in his power to delay the trials.

      1. @9:14
        Trump is doing everything within the law to defend himself.

        Be precise, and explain what laws he is not able to use in his own defense

    2. Honestlawyermostly,
      Well said.
      They keep complaining the decline in faith in institutions, namely the government. But it is by their own actions that has led to that decline.
      The parallels to 1930s Germany are frighting.

  4. Let’s remember that Trump did everything he is accused of and the facts are not in dispute, only his legal guilt. He did falsify bushiness records to hide a payoff to a porn star. He did violate federal and GA laws when he was “questioning” the election. He did steal and improperly store classified documents, and then lied about it and hid them when the government tried to get them back.

    And for those who will say “What about Clinton and Biden?” I don’t care, if they committed crimes then they should be prosecuted also. It is sick that we hold our highest government officials to the lowest standards.

    1. “. . . the facts are not in dispute . . .”

      Really?

      So during a trial, the accused is not allowed to dispute the facts?

      Seems like this is, yet again: Swallow first. Chew later (if at all).

      1. Trump can dispute the facts all he wants, but he will look stupid doing it. It will likely backfire since the facts are facts and not opinion, anyone trying to testify to the contrary will be committing perjury. And since Trump can’t testify himself, many of the assertions from the prosecution will go unanswered.

    2. Sammy – how are the business records “falsified”? What law requires that blackmail payments be described in business records?

  5. JT says…
    “A 2023 poll found that a 47 percent plurality of Americans already believe the charges are politically motivated. ”
    And
    “Most citizens already see that reality.”

    JT, do you need a lesson in basic math? 47% is not a majority.
    Once again, JT seems to be fact challenged.

    1. Is this a troll or do you seriously not understand the difference between majority and plurality?

    1. What is happening is no different than what happen in Germany in the 1930s. And with no rule of law and no secure border, we have no REPUBLIC.

  7. I don’t understand why there are no “checks and balances” for corrupt judges. Obvious bias should be addressed by a higher authority and this should all be stopped. Fair justice should not be based on blue/red states.

    1. As I understand it, the only ‘checks and balances’ for judges is impeachment. That is an inadequate procedure in case of political bias and lack of honesty, because there will never be a qualifying majority in the Senate for conviction.

  9. “. . . claims of blind justice increasingly *look like* the blind pursuit of a specific person.” (JT, emphasis added)

    “Look like”?!

    What would “are” look like?

    Five cases? Removing Trump from the ballot? Kneecapping him since 2016? Smearing him as a white supremacist, insurrection-leading threat to democracy? Denying him the decency of accurate quotes? Refusing to broadcast his speeches and replies to lawfare cases?

    Oh, wait.

    1. Sa, don’t forget James and Bragg in NY stating they would get Trump EVEN BEFORE THEY WERE IN OFFICE. Don’t forget James, Bragg, Fani Willis and her boy toy Wade going to DC as well.

      This whole legal morass was concocted in DC, coordinated in DC, paid for by DC (Soros as well) and now being tried by DC backed Democrat activists.

      1. And no doubt at all, that the Globalist Deep State, CIA, and ‘the moneyed bad guys’ are greasing the skids to get Trump in every way they can. Unless something very dramatic and unforeseen happens, fear that we have already lost the country. Two things need to happen, NGO’s should be curbed mightily, and secret bank accounts need to be eliminated. All that happens in the dark in the world of commerce needs to be cracked open for all to see.

  10. “As the calendar continues to shrink, claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person.”

    Duh!

  11. Trump has only himself to blame. If he had not come down that escalator in 2015, he would have never awakened the leftist zombies in the Democratic party. Most importantly, he forced “the Blob” out into the open and they can never go back; certainly not as long as Trump is a threat.

    Lesson learned? We are a blobstitutional republic. Before Trump, it operated under the control of the progressive uniparty. After Trump, progressives ceded control to the Marxists/Communists. This is what justice looks like in their democracy.

  12. Meanwhile, Turley is silent about NY v Trump, the trial for which starts in just 2 weeks.

  13. “Smith declared that he will not consider himself bound by the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of candidates close to an election.”

    There is no policy of not holding trials for people who’ve already been charged. Are you lying JT, or just ignorant?

    1. In case you missed (3) paragraphs that comment on the 60 day policy, here you go,,
      But I do have a question for you. Why do you always have to throw insults at Prof. Turley? Does it make you feel better? Did he give you a bad grade?

      In his filings in Florida, Smith insisted that the oft-cited Justice Department policy to avoid such proceedings within 60 days of an election would not be applied in Trump’s case. He insisted that, since everyone knows about the allegations, there would be no harm or foul in holding him for trial for the weeks before the election as his opponent, President Biden, is free to traverse the country campaigning.

      Smith’s position was applauded by commentators who had previously invoked the rule to oppose charges that might have helped Trump before prior elections. Take Andrew Weissmann, who served as the controversial top aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Now an MSNBC legal analyst, Weissmann assured viewers that there was no problem trying Trump just before the election because this is just “an internal rule. It is not a law.”

      He then added “Second, the rule does not apply! For anyone who has been at the Justice Department, this is such a red herring.” He insisted this is only meant to avoid some “covert cases” being tried “because you don’t want to influence the election when that person — the candidate — doesn’t have an opportunity to get to trial.”

      However, when the issue was the possibility of Special Counsel John Durham charging figures in the Russia investigation before the 2020 election, Weissmann and Professor Ryan Goodman wrote a column not only invoking the rule but encouraging prosecutors to refuse to assist Durham.

      1. Again, the DOJ policy is only about bringing an indictment. It has not EVER been their policy to not proceed with a case once the person is indicted.

  14. Meanwhile Biden walks away without prosecution for alleged crimes far worse than anything Trump is charged with. The idiot is on record for his corruption in Ukraine, he had volumes of classified documents scattered about for anyone that wanted to see. If this isn’t the pulling back the curtain I don’t know what is.

      1. Go back to sleep. Even if we told you AGAIN all the crimes he has committed, you STILL wouldn’t believe it, because you believe what CNN and MSNBC tell you to believe.

      2. Wally, Trump was PRESIDENT and he took classified documents and secured them at a SECRET SERVICE protected site, as Obama and other presidents have done. Biden took classified documents out of a SCIF as a SENATOR, kept them at his house, his office and his Chines funded “Think” Tank. Biden took classified papers when is was a VICE president and kept them at the same non-secured sites.

        Of course the Wally types will say that Biden returned the documents???? After 20 years? Does the bank robber get such a break? Why did Biden take the papers? Why did the guy that has corrupt dealings with CHINA, Ukraine and Russia take classified documents and then leave them where his corrupt son could use them?

        Biden should be in prison. Biden is as corrupt as Agnew, as racist and fascist as Woodrow Wilson, as incompetent as Jimmy Carter and as popular as Nixon in August 74.

        1. The Secret Service doesn’t protect documents, it only protects people. MaL has not had a SCIF since Trump left office.

          1. And Biden stole his from a Senate skif over 30 years ago. Why did he have them to begin with?? How did he sneak them out?? Why were they tossed in different places and WHY didn’t the Archives ask for his since he had them from different decades and was NEVER President when he stole them??

          2. So the Secret Service would have allowed Russian agents into M-A-L to steal these precious documents without lifting a hand. “Hello, Boris. “Good-bye Boris. Did you get the docs you were looking for?”

            1. Edwardmahl,
              Careful.
              You are displaying a degree of common sense that would destroy anaomoron’s fragile little mind.

          3. The Secret service secures the residence of their Protectees.
            Yes the Secret service protects the site where the documents were located

  15. One of the worst things that will happen under the scenario imagined in this scenario is that it goes forward and Trump loses. He will then, rightfully, claim that the election was stolen and with millions feeling disenfranchised, an actual insurrection could take place.

      1. “How does” throwing Navalny in jail “steal the election?”

        Does your self-induced blindness extend to that case?

        1. His supporters would still vote for him no matter what crime he commits. Him on trial won’t change a thing.

          1. Sammy – it changes a lot. Did you hear George Stephy use the E Jeanne Carrol verdict against Nancy Mace yesterday?

          2. Not just his supporters.
            Normal people who see this for what it is, a corrupt DOJ, FBI, IRS, and Democrats using lawfare in an attempt to keep their political opponent off the ballot by any means necessary.

      2. It is called attempted election interference.
        Sideline Trump with trials and keep him off the campaign trail.

  16. Professor Turley makes my case once again. The Judicial System has been so weaponized that it is not only a joke, but an enemy of Justice itself. This is obvious to the American people. Respect for the law has evaporated. Obedience to the law is no longer required. The law has become a game played for political purposes, administered by robed judges with allegiance to agenda. Perhaps the good professor might elaborate on how the law and the Constitution will fare once The People decide that both are being used against them and are the tools of tyranny.

    1. I am confused. When you say “Obedience to the law is no longer required.” do you mean that because Trump has committed many crimes and has gotten the kid glove treatment?

  17. It is clear that the object of the government is to prevent Trump from running successfully for POTUS. As Turley says, Smith’s statement about the Justice Department’s “rule” of avoiding bringing cases within 60 days of an election being moot in this instance only reinforces the idea that damaging Trump’s campaign is the goal here and nothing else. These officials, including Chutkan, Smith, the New York and Fulton County crews are all acting in concert to deprive Trump of a fundamental right of any native born citizen, aged 35 or older, to run for and be elected POTUS. That they are doing so under the color of law makes this conspiracy even more outrageous. Hopefully, the Supreme Court justices will consider their actions when it decides to rule on the issue of presidential immunity for official actions taken on behalf of the United States by a president while in office. A key responsibility of any POTUS is to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This includes ensuring that elections are carried out with integrity and taking steps to protect the nation’s electoral process. Ironically, what Chutkan, Smith, et al. are doing under the color of law is what they accuse Trump of doing while in office and in contravention of his assigned duties to see that the laws of this nation are carried out. In another example of the founders’ wisdom, their evil conspiracy lends necessity and credibility to the only reasonable outcome to be reached by the Supreme Court on the question of immunity. Any other decision would lead to a persistent litany of activist judges and prosecutors threatening to bring charges against a sitting POTUS for doing her job. This would undermine and cripple a branch of government – the only branch of government – empowered to act decisively and immediately, if necessary, to protect the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Let us hope and pray that the SCOTUS addresses these domestic enemies once and for all.

    1. Trump is not a presidential candidate being prosecuted for crimes, he’s a person being prosecuted for crimes who happens to running for president.

      1. Did you sleep through his 4 years of Presidency where your side lied and forced a fake Russian collusion hoax through and impeached him for things Biden is doing??

      2. Thank you, Wally. This sort of thinking, which is endemic among most liberals today, is one of the main reasons that Trump is so far ahead of Biden in most polls. The people understand exactly why Trump is being hounded by his opponent and the misuse and abuse of our one-great system of jurisprudence. You just need to look at the caliber of those bringing charges against Trump to gauge their integrity and sense of Justice. Their lack of both speaks for itself. Thanks to them and their gullible followers, Trump will be our next POTUS.

  18. Let me preempt the upcoming personal attacks on Prof. Turley. The Hill is NOT a far right, MAGA loving website. He is just writing about what previous legal commentators felt about trials, etc. prior to an election. He also pointed out how many cases are before district judges and yet can’t seem to get to trial. If I missed any criticism, I apologize in advance.
    For those who still want to complain about Prof. Turley, please include the link to your legal blog. Thanks!

    1. EconIsEasy, these contrarian oddballs will come here every day to bang their head against the Turley wall.

      Conservatives change the channel when they don’t want to see Rachel Madow, unsubscribe from the NY Times or the Wash Post, skip CNN on cable on on the computer etc etc. Liberals want Fox banned and want to try to ruin Turley’s great site with a sort of heckler’s veto of 100 comments a day.

      1. I don’t mind people giving their opinions. After all opinions are like a**holes, every one has one. What I find ridiculous is the need to spew insults. That being said, it does indicate their (low) level of intelligence?,,,

        1. EconIsEasy,
          Not only low level of intelligence, but emotional intelligence. They think like some angst fill teenager, posting lame insults is oh, so, “I got him!”
          I have a friend who’s ex-boyfriend thinks by adding emojies in his lame text messages really hurts her!!

    2. EconIsEasy,
      Yeah, they usually scream Fox this, Fox that, even when the column is written for The Hill.
      Lame deflection and attacks on the good professor.

  19. Everyone, yes everyone, knows what a railroad this is. Obscenely biased judge, totally hostile jury pool, political enemies running the (so-called) Justice Department. The only hope for a fair election is whether one man, John Roberts, C.J., can find a way to park or derail the train. Or that he will want to. I am far from confident that he has the cojones.

      1. Visiting Joe Biden and all the corrupt Uniparty when he gets elected President!!!

Comments are closed.