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.
They will use this trial to ignite a Colour Revolution to Riot against Trump this summer that will lead to Suspension Clause and Gun Confiscation https://www.forceswatch.net/comment/into-the-grey-zone-location-vs-doctrine/
https://cis.org/Arthur/Soros-OpEd-Sounds-Vacated-Mayorkas-NonEnforcement-Memo opindia.com/2023/02/george-soros-colour-revolution-india-adani-modi/
revolver.news/2020/09/meet-norm-eisen-color-revolution/
conservapedia.com/U.S._Color_Revolution
Saying gun confiscation and confiscating guns are two entirely different scenarios and outcomes.
I stopped reading after the first two words — “They will.”
My training is in science, so I’ve never believed in psychic predictions. If you know what “will” happen, you are wasting your time shooting your mouth off in the comment section of a lawyer’s blog.
Any other citizen would have been in jail years ago. If anything, the system has bent over backwards to slow walk this case. Plus add in how Ms. Cannon (a Traitor Trump appointee who had no judicial experience) is blocking the documents case.
Again, it is really sad to see all this BS coming from a law professor.
I’m “amazed” that doj would do this, ’cause we all know they have a strict policy against interfering with elections by prosecuting candidates within (x – depending the person pointing out the policy) months of an election. This wouldn’t be election interference or insurrection, would it?
Your support for your claim Perry? Turley offered facts. Generally, rebuttal requires disproving the facts alleged rather than simply conclusory statements with some ad hominem thrown in
“Everyone complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it.”
Mr. Turley, I’d like to make a suggestion. As you’ve clearly made a (circumstancial?) case for abuse of power by Judge Chutkan and the special counsel, Jack Smith, and considering your areas of expertise, I’d find it extremely helpful if you also spelled out what the legal remedies are for such abuse, as well as what chance they have of succeeding in the current situation. Given that it seems we’re seeing increasing occurrances of unacceptable bias in the justice system, many people are getting extremeley frustrated, and an uncomfortable number are beginning to consider that something like a civil war might be the only practical way to fix things. Knowing what the proper, legal, non-violent solutions are within the current system might help to channel their frustration to supporting solutions with less tragic side-effects. As you’ve noted that we’re living in an “Age of Rage”, I think you’d agree that would be beneficial to us all. Note that my suggestion is not limited only to the matters of Chutkan and Smith, but would also extend to future blog posts where you discuss other ongoing wrongdoings.
The only bias is coming from the right wing. Trump has been a white collar criminal for years. Never prosecuted. There is a reason why he said he could shoot anyone on Fifth Avenue in NYC and get away with it.
Oh. My! They live amongst us.
Special sunglassses not required.
Now, do the Clintons, the Biden’s, Pelosi.
Don’t forget plugs and hunter and james.
See link above, Upstate.
JAFO,
Sorry, ad blocker. I cannot see the vid, or the URL.
However, looking at your, “Special sunglassses not required.”
You MUST be referencing John Carpenter’s classic 1988 movie, They Live.
Did you know Piper and David’s fight scene, Carpenter was going to cut it, but they spent so much time on it, not only did Carpenter leave it in, but the whole fight scene then cut or edit any of it?
I own it.
Carpenter and zombie original creator George Romero movies that are sometimes social commentary are classics!
Yeah, the 20-minute (literally) fistfight near the end was a bit much. Still, the film’s plot still plays well in 2024, politically speaking.
Jealous because actually killing Seth Rich didn’t get her elected?
Did you hear. The guy who was leading the insurrection on Jan 6 requested 10,000 National Guard troops to control his army of insurrectionist. The Hollywood directors of the Jan 6 show decided that that piece of information didn’t fit the narrative. The Jan 6 Committee saw Trump’s request and shoved it in the bottom drawer away from the prying eyes of the American public. Instead of being called the Jan 6 Committee it should be renamed the Scoundrels Committee to investigate what happened on Jan 6. The hyenas of the Democratic members of the Senate and the House are gorging on the red meat.
TiT,
Yep.
And at the heart of covering up the evidence and facts, Liz Cheney.
Upstate, you should remember that Trump said something bad about Liz Cheney’s Daddy. As I recall there were a whole bunch of Democrats who said something bad about Liz Cheney’s Daddy. She wasn’t successful against those Democrats so she thought she’d give Trump a try to resurrect her political career. Now both parties see her as pond scum. She was so incensed that she withheld evidence to reach her desired end. When someone is that incensed she must be considered as someone who has been driven to madness. It could be that someone stole her strawberries.
If the facts are on Trump’s side about wanting to prevent a riot at the Capitol on J6th, let him testify at the DC trial and defend himself and his actions, under cross-examination to make sure he’s not exaggerating or revisioning history. It’s time for Trump to submit to questioning under oath, under penalty of perjury. If he wants someone independent and fair-minded like me to believe him, that’s what it will take. Because he’s been BSing his way to get out of trouble his whole life — it’s time to grow a pair and admit he’s not perfect.
Trump will never testify under oath. He can’t go three sentences without lying and will likely confess to the very crime he is accused of. Then we would be in the position of arguing if a presidential candidate (or president) should be charged or impeached for perjury.
Sammy: he has lied so much about so many things that he would get slaughtered on cross-examination–he has NO credibility–which is why his lawyers tell him not to testify.
“If the facts are on Trump’s side about wanting to prevent a riot at the Capitol on J6th, let him testify at the DC trial and defend himself and his actions, under cross-examination to make sure he’s not exaggerating or revisioning history. It’s time for Trump to submit to questioning under oath, under penalty of perjury. ”
PbinCA, it is already proven that Trump tried to prevent a riot. He authorized troops for that aim. Therefore, you should ask Nancy Pelosi why she refused to allow the troops.
Why do you ask Trump, who has documented proof from third parties? You don’t bother to note Pelosi’s obstruction of Trump’s authorization. This mindset concludes before looking at the facts. Why?
“If he wants someone independent and fair-minded like me to believe him, that’s what it will take.”
PbinCA, you should never be on a jury. If the police brought in a criminal, you would judge him based on what the media and everyone else said, how he looked, and non-relevant information.
Just because someone might complain like you doesn’t mean the individual must go to trial. First, you have to find reasonable evidence, which you refuse to provide to the blog when you address Trump. You are Beria incarnated.
That’s a point they don’t like to consider.
The President only has authority over ~2K national guardsmen. What state governor’s were formally contacted with written letters requesting the need to defend the Capitol? Do you have a copy of the written letters requesting national guardsmen?
In a tweet on X last week, Gen. Keith Kellogg (a security advisor to VP Pence), wrote:
“To be clear on 6 Jan/NG. Pg 199 of my book, ‘On 3 Jan the President asked the Def Dept to deploy NG troops’ into DC for J6 contingencies.”
Who said there was a written letter?
When your goal is to “GET TRUMP” in any way possible to try and destroy any possibility of Trump returning to the White House, the immoral “Axis of Unethical Conduct” (Coined by Jack Marshall of Ethics Alarms) will do and say anything to get Trump and remain in power. I really fear for the United States when I think about the kind of “October Surprises” this immoral Axis can come up with if the polls clearly indicate that Trump is going to trounce Biden in the November 2024 election.
Remember, there have been some leftist activists that have openly stated that it’s “more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down”; Trump has been tarred as all those things and worse, much much worse! When it’s a public figure, like the hated demon Trump, that’s constantly being publicly tarred on a national scale from nearly every main stream media outlet as the devil incarnate, white supremacist, Hitler, threat to Democracy, traitor, fascist, Nazi, dictator, insurrectionist, monster, where the government has weaponized the justice system in their transparent effort to get him, etc, etc then murdering that demon is clearly for the benefit of everyone. It’s clear to me that there are people in the left’s Axis of Unethical Conduct that would commend the murderer for ridding the planet of such an evil person, maybe Biden could award the murderer the Presidential Medal of Freedom for their selfless act. Yes, I’m dead certain that there are some completely propaganda brainwashed, cult-like, partisan, progressive sheeple out there that think like it’s “more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic speaker…”, the only question I have is, do any of them have the personal conviction and the will to put their morally bankrupt thoughts into action no matter what the consequences are. All the hate driven propaganda from the left will have consequences.
As you can tell, I’m honestly not so sure anymore how far the Axis of Unethical Conduct in the political left will go to ram their b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-a-t-i-o-n-s of the law and totalitarian views down the throats of “We the People” so they can get their one party domination of the USA and that’s a really scary realization. It’s as if in the minds of the political left “We the People” no longer exist, it’s been replaced in their minds with “You the Subjugated”.
Regarding Donald Trump’s current run for President.
At this point in time I’d rather vote for complete government gridlock between the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington DC and accomplish damn near nothing in the next four years than to vote for Trump. We can easily survive government gridlock, we’ve done it before. It would take an unpredictable act of God, an extraordinary turn of events, for me to vote for Trump in the 2024 general election. For me, the same can be said for Biden.
Based on observed cultural, societal and political patterns, I see the 2024 election as being a societal and cultural disaster for the United States of America. No matter who is elected, the reactions are going to be bad, and they’re likely to be very bad.
Steve Witherspoon, so you’re just going to sit in your comfy home and allow the leftist haters of Democracy to gain control. Trump is indeed an imperfect vessel but he has shown great respect for The Supreme Court and legal voting in our nation. So you go ahead and do nothing to stop the people who given a chance would stop you from commenting on this blog. Please remember. The Trump White House was not meeting with Facebook and Twitter to tell them what speech to allow. You should vote for the man that you think would best defend your rights. Otherwise you will deserve your fate.
Thinkitthrough wrote, “…so you’re just going to… allow the leftist haters of Democracy to gain control.”
I clearly stated that the same can be said for Biden and for anyone that has two functional neurons to rub together that means I won’t vote for Biden either. That is NOT allowing leftist haters of Democracy to gain control.
Using the idiotic “if you’re not casting a vote for Biden then you’re allowing Trump to win” logic won’t work with me.
That posted before I was done with it…
Using the idiotic equivalent to “if you’re not casting a vote for Biden then you’re allowing Trump to win” non-logic won’t work with me.
SW, it is NOT non-logic. Consider this logically – One of two people will win the election – Trump or Biden. Let’s call them A and B. If A > B, then A wins. If B > A, then B wins. And let X, represent the number of non-voters. XA = people not voting for Trump, and XB = people not voting for Biden.
Logically, A vote for A, helps A. A vote for B, helps B. But neither could be said to “allow” the victory, because the numbers are not known.
So, logically, you can not state with assurance, that Not Voting For A, does not allow B to win.
So, substitute the word “helping”, into your statement instead of “allowing” and see how it comes out. Now, I think that your choice is clearer.
Not voting for either, can be broken down as:
Not voting for A, helps B.
Not voting for B, helps A.
But, not voting is going to help one of them more – that is, – the winner.
Logically, if the participants “Not voting for A” outweighs “Not voting for B”, then yes, those people have helped elect Biden – depending on the number of non-voters, the size of X. And, you know that the Democrats have a whole lot of fraudulent voters. And, you don’t know how large X will be, or how many of X are Not A voters, and how many are Not B Voters.
So, the LOGICAL choice here, is to vote for the best person, because that is the best way to get the “better” outcome.
Get with the program here Floyd, Thinkitthrough chose to use the word “allow” not me and that is exactly what my reply is based upon, you cannot change the conditions of the argument.
Floyd wrote, “So, the LOGICAL choice here, is to vote for the best person, because that is the best way to get the “better” outcome.”
In my opinion, and that’s what counts here, neither is “better” than the other, they are both unethical propaganda wielding, divisional politics spewing, pieces of sh!t.
Dear Steve, Tit may have said it, but you adopted it in your response. You could have done just what I did, and provided a more appropriate word, like “helped.”
I also think you could keep it more logical, or maybe more rational, if you chose to break down the term, “divisional politics”, into understandable chunks. For example, Trump wants to divide our nation by sending illegal aliens back home, and Biden wants to divide our nation by bringing on more illegal aliens to keep the Democrats in power.
See, you could maintain that both parties are “divisional”, while completely missing the substance, of how and over what. Which is what you have done, in what appears to be an illogical pique of temper. This is not how I imagine a logical person reacting. I surmise that Mr. Spock, would analyze the situation as I have had, and conclude that Trump is, by far, the lesser of two evils.
Perhaps, if an illegal aliens clobbers you over the head, for your wallet, or if a nuke or two hits near your residence, or if it costs you even more to go to the grocery store, and you have to move into the back seat of your car to keep a roof over your head, then perhaps then you will obtain a new appreciation for having far less evil in charge of things. Or maybe not.
Floyd wrote, “Tit may have said it, but you adopted it in your response.”
Adopted it? Hogwash!
I threw his non-logic back in his face. If you don’t like it, that’s tough.
As for the rest of your comment, when you go down the road of trying to tell me what I should do or could do with my comments, you’re going to get the ever so civil, friend-to-friend reply “bite me” as a response. Don’t take it personally, your opinion as to what I should have or could have done is simply irrelevant, and I consider it to be a simplistic form of trolling.
All that said; you’re welcome to your opinion and you’re welcome to drag the goalpost off the field, down Main St. and onto the Interstate all you want but I’m not participating in your deflections.
We’re done with this conversation.
Well, of course you are done with the conversation. Because like most people, you don’t want to hear what you don’t want to hear, and you don’t want to do what you don’t want to do. But as the Zen Masters teach, not-doing is the same as doing. What all of us SHOULD do, is do things that make sense and are good, and not-do that are stupid or evil. We should not let the uncomfortable feeling that comes from our panties being in a wad, dictate our actions.
You very cogently pointed out above, in summary above, – “All the hate driven propaganda from the left will have consequences.” So, I have a problem with your declared intention to sit this one out, to take your football and go home. That action does not make sense in light of what you described in detail above, as the horrid bad acts of the Democrats. You are not a stupid person, so I am perplexed by why you have chosen to adopt a stupid course of action. Please get a good night’s sleep, and think about it.
Thank you for your consideration!
Floyd, Steve prefers to kick the football into his own face.
For all of their grandstanding, moralizing and finger pointing, your accusers come from a group that gave us what we have today. Since the 1970s post Nixon years, the GOP have been eunuchs. Reagan was grand for his first term but incapacitated his second term, not to mention a fiscal catastrophe both terms.* GHW Bush was a zero, and his son several decimal points to the left of his father, and now Trump.
Our nation is careening towards a collision of forces that will be visible from Antartica. The world is witnessing the end of the US as well. Republicans could have put forward honorable, moral, intelligent candidates but instead they put forth Bush x 2 and Trump. The demise of our nation was preventable and expected given that evil has been growing exponentially since the 1960s. Fiscally we have been a sinking ship since Ronald Reagan.
The only response is to be fit mentally and physically to await the coming collapse of the USA we once had…..”a republic if you can keep it” is now here.
* The four presidents with the worst deficits have been Barack Obama, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151
FRED Economic Data
Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] (FYFSD)
Years 1901-2023
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
Estovir,
Well said!
Thinking on it from a military point of view of economics, logistics and manpower, applying a degree of Sun Tzu, it was Nixon closing the gold standard that has gotten us to where we are today.
Charles H. Smith has pointed this out more than a few times.
IMHO, it is only in that hindsight that we can see the effects of that one action and how it has compounded over various WH admins, no matter which party held it.
While the Republicans cry about it, deficit spending is baked into the cake. There is no stopping or reigning it in no matter who is in the WH or controls Congress. It is going to continue to grow until one day it freezes up like a engine with no oil.
And then we are all screwed.
The only real solution is not pretty, it is very hard, and it will kick nearly all of us quality of life down, not a few notches, but major steps. We are talking about serious austerity. A lot of entitlements will have to go away to include SS. The wife and I have been planning our retirement as if there was NO SS.
As I noted elsewhere, JP Morgan chief US economist noted we have not fully felt the Bidenflation induced Fed rate hikes as they are still working through the economic system. There is more pain ahead. Food prices are expected to make another price surge.
Invest in chickens, PMs, ammo and your own personal health.
IMHO, it is only in that hindsight that we can see the effects of that one action and how it has compounded over various WH admins, no matter which party held it.
While the Republicans cry about it, deficit spending is baked into the cake.
Both parties need each other to keep grifting off of you and me. If you or I fail to pay our debts, you know what happens. Then there is the comfort, complacency, and dependency that our seniors enjoy: SS and Medicare for them are untouchable. This from “conservatives”. Bite me, as Steve said. The nation needs to be treated like an agricultural field post picking crop or a forrest picked for limber: set on fire, let it rebuild
No one wants to cut their pet welfare gravy train. And no one wants to admit blame. Cut them all off financially and observe who is left standing. Survival is literally part of all life forms. We as Americans depend on the Govt which means we are no longer fit. We became slothful, gluttonous and prideful as a people. No more.
“For all of their grandstanding, moralizing and finger pointing, your accusers come from a group that gave us what we have today.”
Estovir, that group comprises everyone, whether intelligent or not, from every party, even those who do not vote. The decisions made by our leaders do not reflect individual desires. You should know that. We live in a Constitutional Republic.
I have most of your end desires. Most people differ more on the means rather than the ends. Stop accusing everyone else as a group. It doesn’t look good.
“We’re done with this conversation.”
So said by a bonehead who fails to logically respond.
Steve- only one of the two candidates is taking measures unprecedented in our history to jail his opponent for life so as to run unopposed; only one of them is trying to add DC as a state to get 2 more Senators for his side; only one seeks to pack the Supreme Court with a bunch of new members who will be of the Chutkan persuasion; only one of the two seeks to eliminate the filibuster thereby assuring the Senate minority cannot be a check against majority tyranny; only one of the two is pushing for federal control of elections to eliminate photographic ID, signature verification, laws agst ballot harvesting, and other election integrity matters; only one of the two has encouraged an invasion of our country to provide his party with 10 million loyal subjects who will reward the party who brought them here; only one of the two is protected and promoted by a cabal of fawning media, Big Tech , academia and the Woke industrial complex. The foregoing are not trivial and they will permanently eradicate the America our Founding Fathers envisaged. Do you still think doing nothing to stop Biden makes sense?
Buzz,
Well said and good points.
Steve, it is ignorant to stay on the fence when two polar opposite opinions are what you separate.
Take one: illegal immigration. Certainly, you have a preference. The personalities of the two candidates aren’t part of that decision. Renunciation of a better path generally isn’t done by an intelligent person.
Amen
Steve,
Well said.
I have seen so many people call Trump literally Hitler, yet when we look at his first admin, what did he do that was Hitler like? While I do not put the rise in antisemitism on the Biden admin, the Democrats in academia have not exactly gone out of their way to stop it. Then there are those in MSM cry that Trump will become Hitler, a dictator, whatever if he is re-elected. Just the other day there was some loon saying the same on MSNBC.
If it were not for that kid’s sister talking him down from an attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh, we clearly see there are some willing to go that far.
Would I like a real viable third option? Or someone else than either Biden or Trump?
Yes.
I have said in the past I would like to of seen DeSantis vs RFK Jr.
But here we are.
I am not voting for Trump per say, but against the woke leftism that has gripped the Democrat party.
per se….nor am I…but voting for small government, capitalism, patriotism, etc. etc.
It’s a TDS thing – you wouldn’t understand.
Well, so far, they certainly haven’t downgraded any of these from ‘investigations’ to ‘matters’, like Comey did with Hillary.
Because he ‘didn’t want there to be any impression that the prosecution would be politically motivated’, don’t you know?
And because he ‘didn’t want any of it to be happening so close to the upcoming election’. One-way streets, anyone?
jackie has made tortuous rationalization and excuses as to why this persecution “doesn’t actually violate that policy.”
Professor Turley,
You’re commentary regarding the so-called 60 day rule is inaccurate. The rule is an unwritten policy against federal prosecutors indicting a candidate or federal law enforcement taking “overt” investigative steps regarding the candidate – such as executing a search warrant or conducting an interview – in close proximity to an Election Day in a party primary or a general election.
Weissmann is correct that it does not apply to Trump because Trump has ALREADY been indicted. It would apply if the Justice Department was considering charges within the 60-day period, which was precisely the situation with the Durham investigation. This is also why Weissmann’s position is not conflicting in these two very different situations. Weissmann very clearly lays out the rule in both articles you link to in your article. Did you actually read them before writing this piece?
Here is the rule as described by the US Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, for those who care for the details of the actual rule: http://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
While the Justice Department controls the timing of its investigative efforts, it does not control when a trial occurs once someone is indicted. Federal judges, who are not employees of the Justice Department or even the executive branch, set trial schedules. There is no rule, which requires the Justice department to drop charges in court or somehow delay a trial proceeding when a candidate is within the 60 day window. Do you have any evidence that this has ever been the case?
Your*
Too bad dems simply cannot have good policies and viable candidates, then all this nonsense would be moot.
Oh well, the perversion and death cult must keep progressing. ABC, Aborting, Bombing, and Child trafficking and grooming…or is the C China appeasement or Corrupt leaders or Chain migration invasions or…
I don’t see what the big fuss is all about. The former President is his own worst enemy. He could go on TV and apologize for his “overreach in trying to find fraudulent votes” after 2020 election. This admission would take the wind out of the sails of the DC prosecution. What most of the country wants is for Trump to stop lying to himself and everyone else, and act like a responsible grown-up instead of a petulant teenager. His adolescent mindset that you win by exaggerating wildly and disrespecting anyone who tries to correct you is pathetic — it doesn’t build trust and confidence. Rather, it sends people to their corners, and makes it hard to agree on anything. Nothing permanent gets done. Polemicists like Trump keep us stuck in yo-yo policy oscillations.
He could change his situation by honestly and candidly taking responsibility for going too far at the end of his term.
As long as he holds himself as “perfect” and always finds others to blame when things go sideways, he can’t measure up to being US President. He could do much better than he’s doing, but would have to know when to exercise give and take, rather than fantasizing about running the table..
The fuss is that your illegitimately elected (girl you know its true) dementia patient cannot win a popular election despite the full force of 99% of the propaganda arms of the world at his disposal. So the lawyers step in and activate the corrupt DAs and judges, and that doesn’t help. So to protect the nation against a popular president, the left will resort to any trick in the book – expect “mass” shootings, “race” riots, and maybe even worse – all in order to keep a dunce in power so a bunch of disgruntled, poorly educated, leftist women and women-like folk (obammaists) in control of the purse strings and legal abuses operations of the US government. That’s what the fuss is about.
The only thing Trump should apologize for is underreach in finding the corruption of the 2020 election.
He did nothing fraudulent….he simply was questioning results such as is the right of any citizen. I question…put me in jail!
shrillary and her sycophants are STILL protesting 2016!
Has Al Gore Jr ever apologized?
“His adolescent mindset that you win … is pathetic — it doesn’t build trust and confidence. Rather, it sends people to their corners,”
PbinCA, you remind me of the generals who could only lose and complain. ‘Grant drinks too much alcohol.’ Lincoln responds, ‘Send Grant a case of his favorite whisky. (paraphrased remarks)
Lincoln took those complaints and recognized who was pathetic; instead of listening to those who could only demean another leader, he sent them to the corner, telling them to win like Grant.
@Turley,
Remind me which Trump lawsuit?
So many, they kinda get confusing.
This is less an indictment of Trump but of the Democrats use of lawfare.
So, you have a Democrat biased judge who ignore precedence on a trial that is questionable.
You have prosecutor who is on a time table to legally interfere w the election.
Now SCOTUS is in fact hearing the argument that Smith’s appointment is in fact illegal. (Which would end this case without dealing w the merits of the case raised in trial.)
Then there’s the immunity issue. Now Trump’s lawyers are giving bad examples, but there’s the underlying question of at least qualified immunity.
And of course, while it may not apply to this case… (Again I apologize for forgetting which case this is…) But we can now see that some of the evidence presented to the GJ was tainted.
The longer this case goes on… the better it is for Trump.
Every time he stumps… he’ll talk about this case.
That is of course unless SCOTUS steps in and rules against Smith.
-G
I watched President Trump for four years, and I saw nothing that made me think that he was doing anything wrong for America. He didn’t start any wars, he lowered taxes, he spoke clearly so I could understand him, and made me feel good about America. The thing I can’t understand, is why powerful people imbedded in government like Brennan and Comey, along with their toadies, hate him so much. In the America I fought for and believed in, they would be prosecuting Biden and the Clintons for selling out the United States of America.
Trump will not clean ‘the swamp’ hiring people like Pompeo and Bolton. Or Nikki Hayley. They are the swamp.
Trump’s own Justice/intel officials tried to impeach him, ffs. Over 50 top intel officials, including the past five CIA directors, claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation two weeks before the last election.
At some point, Trump would have to confront all the Democrats .. . and most of the Republicans.
*’… the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday’ ~ Sen. Chuck Schumer
dgs – in his second term, Trump REALLY needs to do a better job of changing the culture in DC. As you note, this starts with personnel. How about Mark Levin for AG? How about Tulsi Gabbard for Defense Secretary? How about John Mearsheimer for Secretary of State? How about J Turley for S. Ct.?
Edward mahl and Dgs,
I get the overall idea of drain the swamp, but I think there are just too many people dependent on the swamp for it to ever go away.
I am not talking about Congress, or those at the top levels of the agencies, but everyone down to the janitors.
We saw the attempts to under mind Trump with the CIA going to five eyes to spy or “bump” into Trump associates. We saw the Strzok-Page texts. Lois Lerner. The government people working over at Twitter, Facebook to censor narratives they did not like. How many more are there?
Sad part is they actually think they are doing good.
Upstate is correct: there are a great many people whose rice bowl would be threatened by a real political reformer. Hence there is little interest in ‘draining the swamp.’ Moreover, Americans generally have become very fond of big and generous government. Look around: lots of government benefits, from Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid to handsome pensions for government, including military, personnel, to a myriad of programs that bestow financial ‘help’ on Americans from sea to entitled sea.
So the ‘swamp’ may be fetid, but it continues to be a huge source of widespread beneficence to a great many persons both in Washington, D.C. and beyond. Until there emerges a political leader who can persuade the citizenry that it’s in their interest to undertake even modest reforms of our entitlement and other welfare state programs, the swamp will continue to expand, and “something for nothing” will continue to be the basic operating principle of every self-interested voter.
Willbarthelmy,
Well said.
Read an article about how we are racking up $1T- T as in Trillion- in deficit every 100 days.
Some speculate at some point in the very near future it is going to go bust and then what does it look like when there is no money for any entitlements?
UF – “they actually think they are doing good.” So did many of the people who undermined the Weimar Republic.
Edwardmahl,
Yeah.
Reading your comment, I had to give out a ironic chuckle.
Edward mahl. Would love see Turley replace Jean-Pierre as spokesperson in a Trump WH .. . but his services might be better Utilized in DoJ/OLC for more immediate impact.
*I have no major issues with any of your ‘picks’ but, as we agree, Trump would need to choose his cabinet very, Very carefully. .. a lot, Lot better than he did last time.
@UpstateFarmer. There is an old saying in hills; one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. I think that’s true with people too.
*Imo, it’s just the few decision-makers at the top – especially in national security/intelligence communities and DoJ – that are most responsible for our present predicament.
The thing I can’t understand, is why powerful people imbedded in government like Brennan and Comey, along with their toadies, hate him so much
Follow the money.
First, Trump cannot be influenced by money. Cant be motivated by promises of wealth, no fear the loss of power or money. That means the man cannot be controlled.
Trump is the most dangerous man in DC threatening the stream of grift funneled into politician’s accounts.
Next, Trump exposes the ineptitude of DC elites. CDC? Exposed as a huge clown car, not any more intelligent than a bright senior in high school
The State Dept? Full of Ivy elites. Trump demonstrated true Statesmanship with the Abrahams Accords. Bringing peace to the middle east. Until Biden took hold of the wheel.
This is not driven by hate. Its fear.
So you thing spearheading an attempted coup is not wrong for America? Or stealing classified documents?
Well your statements are lies….so that’s wrong for America.
There was no coup. Only in the minds of the mindless. The only classified documents stolen were BIDEN’S and from the time he was a senator.
You are referring to what Biden did, correct?
There was no attempted coup.
It is nothing but a false narrative you hold on to.
Did you see where Liz Cheney tried to cover up evidence and facts in the Jan6th Committee clown show?
They hate him because they hate themselves and the country.
Dear Prof Turley,
With Biden’s DoJ/FBI and Special Counsel all focusing on Trump before the election, the 770,000 cases pending in 100 District courts will have to wait.
Clearly, we are well past surreal and looking into the abyss. Beyond that there be dragons.
For example, let’s suppose Trump wins the election and is convicted – pick one – the same day. The mind reels.
Otoh, let’s suppose President Biden wins the election, and his impeachment culminates on Nov. 7 with charges of corruption, bribery, war crimes and genocide in Ukraine, Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and around the world. Just kidding. That will never happen. .. and that’s a long time.
Something [redacted] has got to give. These people can/will say and do anything.. . and the NYT does not print retractions.
*according to the Chinese calendar, 2024 is the year of the Dragon.
Dgsnowden,
“Something [redacted] has got to give. These people can/will say and do anything.. . and the NYT does not print retractions.”
On one hand, it would be great fun to watch all our leftist friends heads explode when Trump wins the election.
On the other, we have seen how in their fevered TDS minds they just might do exactly anything not excluding the truly stupid to “save democracy.”
2020 was the year of the Rat. The Chinese got that one right.
Ah yes …… the word games that Ms. Chutkan plays. Kind of reminds me of how the mainstream media glosses over Hunter’s 20 shell bank accounts for non-descript companies and then gleefully proclaims that Lunch Box Joe didn’t receive any money. Ms. Chutkan is faithfully on Team Biden and will do everything she can to interfere with the 2024 election.
Ms. Chutman need to be impeached.
Amen! Chutkan needs to be sh!tcanned!
I would imagine that Trump’s secret service detail will be skittish until Trump completes his second term as POTUS and then retires to some isolated enclave. I am certain that there are elements within the prog/left that, short of stopping him in the courts or with a rigged election, they would be willing to ultimately remove him from the scene; their insanity and TDS is of the same mindset that sent 19 terrorist to fly planes into building in the name of their beliefs.
Jonathan: Did you watch the Oscars last night? DJT was glued to the screen and feebly tried to roast the host, Jimmy Kimmel: “Has there EVER been a WORST HOST then Jimmy Kimmel at the Oscars? His opening was that of a less the average…Get rid of Kimmel!”. Kimmel had a response for DJT during the closing: “Thank you President Trump. Thank you for watching. I’m surprised you are still…isn’t it past your jail time?” Classic Kimmel! Joe Scarborough put his finger on DJT’s problem: “It’s like an old fighter that is past his prime. The things that may have worked, that may have been disruptive six, seven, you know, 2016, everybody knows what’s coming…[DJT] was the butt of a joke for millions and millions of people last night”. Yeah, Donald, that sticht got old years ago!
Speaking of DJT, the medical diagnosis is in–DJT is suffering from some serious cognitive disabilities. John
Gartner, clinical psychologist and former Johns Hopkins Medical School professor, described DJT this way: “Not enough people are sounding the alarm, that based on his behavior…Donald Trump is dangerously demented. This is a tale of two brains. Biden’s brain is aging. Trump’s brain is dementing. If Trump were your relative, you’d be thinking about assisted care right now”. Harry Segal, clinical psychologist opined: “Note, though, that Trump’s pathological lying is itself a form of mental illness, so these cognitive lapses are literally sitting atop what appears to be an already compromised psychological functioning”. A word to wise voters. Do you want this guy to have his fingers on the nuclear launch codes?
Finally, there are still reverberations from Sen. Katie Britt’s GOP response to Joe Biden’s “State of the Union” address to Congress. In her speech from her “kitchen” Britt related a story about a woman, 12 at the time, who was sexually assaulted by members of a drug cartel. Britt wanted her audience to believe the incident took place under Biden’s watch. FACT CHECK: Turns out the incident took place in Mexico–not the US. And it happened between 2004 and 2008–a decade before Biden became President. Seems Britt has a lot of explaining to do!
I’ll get to your column shortly.
It’s called tertiary syphilis.
In your case it is called neurosyphilis
Kimmle and Joe Scarborough
There are no two bigger thumb suckers than these two. I promise. You are just as “smart” as your two idols.
Strange, that Dennis goes off topic everyday to recount some meaningless pleadings before some court.
But when the topic is the judiciary, Dennis is forced to lie about anything but.
If you would talk less you would show less your ignorance.
Dennis – this reminds me of magazine article in 1964 that quoted a number of psychiatrists who opined that Barry Goldwater was clinically insane. The Soviet Union also dealt with its dissidents by characterizing them as mentally ill. People change, but the tactics don’t.
Edwardmahl: Do you know about the “Goldwater Rule”? Back in 1964 some psychiatrists argued Goldwater was nuts. The APA stepped in and disavowed such opinions. They instituted Rule 7.3 that said: “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement”. That got a lot of pushback from some in the profession. I don’t know whether Rule 7.3 is still around but it has not stopped psychiatrists from opining on DJT’s mental state.
DJT defines himself as a “stable genius” –so I doubt he would subject himself to a psychiatric evaluation. Personally, I don’t think DJT is clinically insane. DJT is a cold and calculating narcissist. Like Hitler and Goebbels, DJT believes if you repeat a lie often enough some people will believe it. But lying and mental illness are not the same thing. Consistent lying is a sign of bad character and a willingness to manipulate others for self interest–but doesn’t necessarily mean DJT is “crazy”. DJT is crazy like a fox! If DJT were clinically insane I would say put him in a mental institution. But DJT knows exactly what he is doing and that is why he should be held legally accountable.
“Speaking of DJT, the medical diagnosis is in–DJT is suffering from some serious cognitive disabilities. John Gartner, clinical psychologist and former Johns Hopkins Medical School professor, described DJT this way …”
Not that a drooling moron like YOU would know this, but it’s a very serious breach of medial ethics to pronounce a diagnosis concerning a person that has NOT been personally interviewed. It’s also a serious breach of medical ethics to publicize a diagnosis, real or fictional.
No reasonable person would believe that the information you cited here is anything but dishonest pseudo-medical lawfare. Seek help concerning your terminal TDS, but not from the clown you cited, unless you want him to make up a bunch of nonsense, call it a diagnosis, and then spread it all over the web.
So, we have another judge who has already ruled Trump guilty.
We have judges and prosecutors both tossing aside “norms” to “Get Trump.”
We have another set of prosecutors caught red handed in doing the very thing they are accusing Trump of doing.
It is shameful to see how low the Democrats have brought down America to a banana republic.
The upside is watching all our leftists friends run around in circles, making their lame comments as if we do not see what is going on with our own eyes.
It is kinda fun!
Meanwhile, Trump’s polling better than Biden. Despite all their lame attempts, the Biden campaign is in a panic and their desperation shows.
What “norms” we tossed aside? Both judges in the NY case bent over backwards to accommodate trump. If trump had been a normal person each judge would have slapped a gag order on him so fast it make your head spin.
And don’t forget Judge Cannon in the dox case. She’s in the can for trump.
Oh my…no leftist judge is bending over backwards for Trump..
Wally – I didn’t know that it was now a “norm” to gag litigants. When did that happen?
Very nice column. Thank you Professor Turley. What very few people seem to understand is that if we allow the justice system to be pimped out to whichever party is in power, there is no path back. If they can do this to Trump, they can do it to anyone – and they will.
There is no doubt that there is a ‘concerted effort’ orchestrated at some level (DNC/WH) to stop candidate Trump with Law fare.
The question is: What are the ‘Legalities & Illegalities’ of this process and where has it been colluded by Negligent Tort of the Judicial System (legal malpractice).
Following a premise of the Court and the Prosecution colluding to Convict|Sentence|Detain the Candidate (Trump) raises serious implications of:
Prosecutorial misconduct
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_misconduct
Selective prosecution
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_prosecution
Connivance
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connivance
–
Collusion: Definitions and Meanings
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines collusion as “secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, collusion is “a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right.”
Definitions of the term often suggest illegal acts. Yet, despite its legalistic tone, the word collusion is not a legal term in criminal law. There’s no criminal charge called collusion. The term does not necessarily signal a criminal offense.
[Link] findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/is-collusion-a-crime.html
[This applies to Michael Cohen also, (IF) Trump is Convicted regarding Payment to Stormy Daniels. If Cohen does have a “Deal” with the Prosecutors that He will not be Charged for his involvement (* The Bagman $) with Trump then the Prosecutors have Colluded with Cohen (presumably for testimony against Trump)]
* Aiding and Abetting
Often called accomplice liability, a person who aids or abets the commission of a crime may also face charges for the crime carried out by someone else. Under federal law, the accomplice who assists or encourages the crime shares the same criminal responsibility as the principal offender. (See 18 U.S. Code Section 2)
About the type of collusion at issue, the co-conspirator helps plan the target crime. The accomplice, in contrast, may have no role in the planning. They may collude by the actions they take to help commit the crime. For example, if an accomplice works in law enforcement, they may look the other way while the crime happens.
—
Collusive Prosecution (Sort of a State & Federal Prosecutorial Anti-Trust arrangement)
[In this matter of Trump, it would be the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York office, in and between; Bragg, Smith, Harrison, Pomerantz, and Others involved]
Can State prosecutors and Federal prosecutors exchange case information with each other?
On and Off the Record (On/Off Discovery Rules – Brady|Non-Brady)
NOTE: The Department of Justice has no authority to intervene in matters of State law. The Department of Justice can assume jurisdiction only when there has been a violation of federal law.
[Link] nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-federal-prosecution.html
—
The Bench
Judicial Misconduct and Public Confidence in the Rule of Law
By David J. Sachar
[Link] unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/08/judicial-misconduct-and-public-confidence-in-the-rule-of-law.html
Lets take a look at deez Guyz facing 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐎𝐍ald Trump.
𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 New York State Supreme Court Justice, 𝐉𝐮𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧 New York State Supreme Court (Manhattan)
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Merchan
J.D.: [Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_A._Deane_School_of_Law
—
𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐂. 𝐖𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐬 Family: Wife Deborah Scheinbach Weiss, Father Meyer Weiss
By: Jessica McBride ~ Aug 12, 2023
[Link] heavy.com/news/david-weiss-family-wife-deborah-scheinbach-weiss-father-meyer-weiss/
—
𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡 Politics: Is Special Counsel a Democrat or Republican?
By: Jessica McBride ~ Aug 1, 2023
[Link] heavy.com/news/jack-smith-politics-democrat-republican/
𝐊𝐚𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐲, Jack Smith’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
By: Jessica McBride ~ Aug 12, 2023
[Link] heavy.com/news/katy-chevigny-jack-smith-wife/
—
𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐚 𝐃𝐀 𝐅𝐚𝐧𝐢 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐬, Was a Black Panther Leader
By: Jessica McBride ~ Feb 16, 2024
[Link] heavy.com/news/john-floyd-fani-willis-father-dad/
—
𝐀𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐠’s Family & Parents: 5 Fast Facts to Know
By: Jessica McBride ~ Mar 20, 2023
[Link] heavy.com/news/alvin-bragg-family-parents-kids-children/
𝐉𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐠, Alvin Bragg’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
By: Jessica McBride ~ Apr 4, 2023
[Link] heavy.com/news/jamila-ponton-bragg-alvin-wife/
American Prosecution Hustle (The End of Smith)
A 1:48 rebuttal to Biden’s SOTU by Joe Biden?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2024-03-11/best-response-bidens-sotu
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.
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.
Smith didn’t wait years. Smith was appointed Special Counselt in November of 2022, and he indicted Trump in August of 2023.
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?
Here is maybe a mountain that you overlooked:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sleazy-liz-cheney-loses-it-after-bombshell-report-claims-she-suppressed-exonerating
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.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/03/08/bombshell-infamous-trump-raffensperger-call-at-heart-of-fani-willis-prosecution-was-illegally-recorded-n2171138
This is even more eye opening
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
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
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.
How many trump lawyers have been disciplined? I think the number is 17 and counting.