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.
Jonathan
It appears that some people like Gigi, are still very confused when it comes to immigration law.
Yes, anyone “already present” in the US can make an asylum claim. This clause is there as a means for those who, having entered the country legally, say, by visa, are able to make an asylum claim without having to do it at a port of entry. Someone crossing the border illegally, between ports of entry, is not “already present”. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that.
But back to crossing between ports of entry. 8 USC 1325 reads as follows. Note that there is NO EXCPTION for those claiming asylum. NONE. Note the word ANY
(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
This law makes NO EXCEPTION for those claiming “asylum”. So, these illegal entrants should be making their asylum claims during their 6 month prison term.
Further, lets dispel the outright and blatant LIE that Republicans in Congress are to blame. 8 USC 1182 Section (f) reads as follows:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The President has EVERY power he needs to stop this stone cold dead in its tracks. Why hasn’t he?
While I agree – that is NOT the big deal.
The Big problem is that even if these people followed the letter of the law – they would not qualify for asylum. Very few people are granted asylum.
Asylum is NOT a consequential means to skip the queue for normal legal immigration.
It is a means to allow people like Julian Assange or Russian Defectors. Or politically active people in a country being targeted by their government.
It is not for economic immigrants, it is also not for people fleeing from non-governmental threats. US Asylum law does not cover those fleeing drug cartels or crime.
98% of all asylum hearings were denied prior to Biden, and that is after the overwhelming majority were rejected on application.
Prior to Biden about 20,000 asylum requests per year were granted. That is not a Trump specific thing – that was the rate for decades.
Further this was legally addressed before – the courts determined that those from El Salvador – fleeing death squads did not qualify for asylum, because the El Salvadoran government was not threatening to kill them.
It is only the Biden administration which is as they have been from the start – refusing to follow US immigration law, that is allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants to seek asylum.
This is an attempt to game the system – to overwhelm the courts handling asylum cases and to delay the hearings long enough that these people will have been hear for over a decade before they get an asylum hearing an are thrown out.
Even applying for asylum requires providing at least a prima fascia case that the country that you fled is trying to persecute you.
We can debate what US immigration law SHOULD be. I would actually side with those on the left – that we need to allow substantially more legal immigrants into this country. Frankly, I support a LAWFUL version of “open borders”.
Government benefits should be restricted to citizens – by constitutional amendment if necescary. While I would grant anyone who serves honorably in the US military citizenship – in all other ways it should remain as difficult to become a US citizen as it currently is.
I would eliminate the lottery and immigration quotas, and purely vet immigrants for dangerous backgrounds – barring terrorists and criminals. And after that I would require that immigrants have sponsoirship and that sponsorship must mean meaningful responsibility for those that are being sponsored. I would allow anyone or any organization to sponsor whoever they wanted from whereover they wanted for whatever reason they wanted. But those sponsors would be responsible for assuring that immigrants have a place to stay and are not a burden on the rest of us, and if they fail at that – those immigrants will be deported.
If Microsoft or Amazon wishes to sponsor thousands of immigrants – fine. If the UCC or Unitarian church wants to sponsor thousands of immigrants – fine. If families and individuals and civic groups wish to sponsor immigrants fine.
The Sponsors pick who they wish to sponsor – not government.
But that is NOT the system we have. We must change our laws to do that.
Whatever our immigration laws are – the US government must enforce the actual immigration law – not their party or policy preferences.
The egregious failure of the current administration is far worse that immigration.
If we can not trust a president to enforce the immigration laws that they do not like.
We can not trust that president to enforce ANY laws they do not like.
We did not elect the president king. The oath of office requires upholding the constitution and enforcing the laws of the land.
If you can not do that – even when you do not like those laws. Then you are lawless and unqualified to be president.
Our entire constitutional scheme of govenrment means nothing if the person we elect president can do whatever they please ignoring the laws.
In the US if we do not like the law (or constitution) we change the law or constituion.
If we tolerate just ignoring it – we have no law or constitution.
Not disagreeing but…
Ironically, you say that ignoring current law is NOT a big deal, then you go on in some detail to explain how ignoring asylum law is a big deal, because failing such, we have no law.
What i discussed is a big deal because if current law were followed, or the President acted per law, there wouldn’t be all of these asylum claims, or illegal entries. You throw them in jail, then deport them, they stop showing up. Its a very simple formula.
Excellent blueprint. Surely Smith and Chutkin are studying it right now. Well done.
C O R R U P T I O N…..Our federal “justice” system today! If CHUTKIN, SMITH et al, are allowed to run amok and railroad President Trump, we might as well bend over and kiss it goodbye! Once the system is bent and broken, as bad as Progressive-Socialists have engineered and it’s as distorted to the extent of NO Rule of Law or plain, common decency, the end of the nation won’t be far off.
More of the Left’s destruction of Democracy to supposedly “Save Democracy”, they are such twisted lying endless parade of human debris!
There is absolutely no action the left wing won’t consider in order to prevent Trump from being elected again.
Including assassination of the Republican candidate
The one person.
correct and i would say they would moab mar-a-lago if they felt that would become necessary. the jan6th gulag has all but assured them of carte blanche. the republic is dead.
Biden’s unhinged mob do not believe in justice. In their view it is “Just Us”.
When you consider that hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to defend American democracy and Americans have killed hundreds of thousands of people to defend it, I would not be surprised if Americans shoot these people even if it costs them their lives. Americans are taught that democracy id worth killing and dying for and the men who did that are heroes. Killing a judge or a prosecutor would normally be unthinkable but when they are trying to end two and a half centuries of democracy, it is very probable.
Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address to praise the men who died to ensure that American democracy did not perish from the Earth. That is how high the stakes are. It is foolish to think of this as just a legal case. It would be better for the Supreme Court to prevent the death of American democracy by dismissing all the cases the Democrats are using to put the Republican candidate in prison during the election. The alternative is almost certainly political violence, if not, civil war.
Well said, even more important if you realize we are a Constitutional Republic, much more important than a ‘democracy’ a mis-leading term to confuse the issues and citizens.
When will the American people realize that the Elite authoritarians are abusing the english language for political purposes? and it’s working for them!. they control the words, Change the meanings of the words. Those who control the words control the narrative. Those who control the narrative control culture. Those who control culture control politics. Those who control politics control government. And those who control government are in a position to abuse the people. That’s what democrats do. It’s who they are.
At this point, I recognize that democrats always choose power over Democracy. They do not care about a representative from of government and if possible, abolish the SCOTUS, the electoral college and the Constitution. Sad.
hundreds of trillions are at stake. people kill over a cigarette butt.
Decades ago – when there were hanging Chads – the supreme took the case…despite no claims of wide spread fraud. Today the touch stone is your a criminal if no evidence of wide spread fraud enough to over come the initial count. Which is ridiculous even Texas denied the system bc it wasn’t secure. Yet when it sued other states with 25 other states in original jurisdiction – no standing. No proof of Wide spread fraud. How did our system go from no fraud mere hanging Chads….to your a defendant unless you got evidence – the president takes an oath to the best of his ability – even in the face of courts denying standing – to protect preserve and defend our constitution. And half the states said so too – but Jack doesn’t get it.
The third branches OATH matters here. And is unique – the rest any others take is to support the constitution- the well regulated military oath is more specific as to lawful orders. But Jack uses a hypothetical that defamed the brass one the operator. So much he thinks about the oath – whilst the president takes a unique one – to protect preserve and defend – it was enough states departed with their laws – enough that so many irregularities – to invoke the duty of his oath….but these ppl want to criminalize the presidents oath not on bribery like Biden- but for mere inquiry and using the law – to protect preserve and defend? Znd for exact contact the senate acquitted at 2nd impeachment. Those is our country and Trump is the embodyment and that’s what the fear. Be Americans and have no fear.
The problem was not the count.
The problem was violation of election law.
Ballot harvesting where non was allowed
Mail in voting. in violation of the law
No signature verification.
Lots of laws were broken. The Judiciary said no thanks. Fraud is not our problem
If Trump can win in November it will be so great for our country on many levels. We will start to regain our border, we may even start to remove some of the 10 million illegals that Biden has encouraged to come in, we will end the insanity of letting a ragtag group like the Houthis attack free shipping in the Red Sea, we will see Iran put back in a box, we will start to rev back up our energy sector, we will get inflation under control, students will pay back THEIR loans and we won’t have trans women (or men, it is so confusing) showing their breasts on the WH lawn.
One other great thing that will occur will be seeing the lunatic left go crazy, riot in the streets, protest, burn and loot in all blue cities and little AWFLs crying with their cats. But one other positive side effect will be that it will be the end of Hamas and for two reasons, 1) Trump will end Iran’s ability to spend billions and 2) the Antifa, BLM, Climate crowd will have a new “cause of the month” and Hamas will be yesterday’s news. For Hamas and the anti-Semites it will be like BLM trying to raise money after 2023. The scam will be over, the cash will be going elsewhere and Israel will be free to end this nightmare for the entire world. Hamas will be like having a poster of George Floyd on your front lawn. PASSE’.
“When Trump attacks @JoeBiden in speeches now, he can be as whimsical as he always was, but there’s an arresting authenticity to the attacks. It’s not a game anymore. Biden’s trying to take away his liberty, his fortune, even his life. Trump really means it. It’s not just politics.” @joelpollak
100 percent – this is doanalds life itself on the line – but they can’t because he embodies us – if they can to him they will do to us – we are in a civil war like it or not. Even Biden said so lucky for us over 5o percent of the military is from the 15 percent rural – but he’s fixing on letting the “migrants” m16 enlist.
Prof. Turley,
First, I think that your “nightmare scenario” is highly unlikely.
It is near certain that the legal system from top to bottom is entirely devoid of anyone who is unwilling to say STOP to the many many violations of due process necescary to accomplish this.
Second -It does not matter. Democrats have pinned their hopes on the polling that says Voters will abandon Trump if he is convicted of a fellony.
But that Polling masks the underlying presumption that such a conviction is accomplished by means that overwhelming majorities of people are persuaded the process was fair and that Guilt was actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The plurality of people – near majority who beleive these prosecutions are political are not going to be persuaded by even more heavy handed political weaponization of the courts.
You have repeatedly claimed that the Florida Case is the most dangerous to Trump. That is True – not because it is the strongest legally.
But because it is the case that people are most likely to Trust that Trump got a fair trial.
Regardless the rush is more dangerous to democrats that to Trump.
Trump’s polling has gained 10pts since this lawfare started. There is more going on than just this lawfare. but it is likely that the lawfare thus far has significantly benefitted Trump rather than harmed him.
But this goes beyond Trump. This lawfare harms ALL democrats, not just Biden.
The left is channeling Levanti Beria, increasingly we look to the world and ourselves like some banana Republic.
You can’t fool all the people all the time.
Meanwhile, which is to say “off topic” — but not very far off topic considering that AI might gain control of the election system:
“US-funded report issues urgent AI warning of ‘uncontrollable’ systems turning on humans”
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/us-funded-report-issues-urgent-ai-warning-uncontrollable-systems-turning-humans#
Well, DUH. It’s not like we weren’t warned about this more than 50 years ago. Oh, wait a minute. That was science “fiction”:
Talk about trying to “overturn an election”, here is a relevant article from Breitbart:
“Poll: Majority of Democrats Oppose Certification of 2024 Election If Donald Trump Wins”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/11/poll-majority-democrats-oppose-certification-2024-election-if-donald-trump-wins/
Trump should easily win this election, Biden is morally bankrupt and as corrupt as it gets. It will unfold, the Federal indictments against Trump are nothing but political persecution. If they weren’t Biden would have been indicted and convicted based on Hurs report. Bidens latest budget proposal is absurd, tax and spend, that’s all Democrats know.
Trump 2024!
Biden and Obama 10-20!
Professor Turley Writes:
A 2023 poll found that a 47 percent plurality of Americans already believe the charges are politically motivated.
***
Here are excerpts from the Fox News piece Turley linked:
A recent ABC/Ipsos poll conducted after the shocking indictment found that 48% of Americans think Trump was rightfully charged in the classified documents case, while 35% do not think he should have been indicted. About 17% reported feeling unsure about whether the former president should have been indicted the second time.
About 42% of American believe the charges are very serious, while 28% do not think the charges against the former president should be taken seriously.
While the former president says he will plead not guilty, the poll suggested that 46% of Americans think that given the charges, Trump should halt his 2024 campaign for president. Despite some concern, 38% believe he should continue his campaign, while 16% did not have an opinion.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nearly-half-country-supports-trump-federal-indictment-but-believes-politics-involved-poll
…………………………………………………..
KEY PASSAGE ABOVE:
“46% of Americans think that given the charges, Trump should halt his 2024 campaign”.
***
This Fox News article is from June of last year, about 9 months ago. That was well-before the Iowa caucuses. Yet even then, more Americans felt that Trump should halt his 2024 campaign as opposed to those who thought he should continue.
In fact, it’s odd that Turley linked this Fox News piece because these poll results are generally negative towards Trump. Instead of bolstering Turley’s argument, they seem to contradict.
During the time between the poll YOU cite and today Trump has picked up 6pts nationwide and 10pts in swing states.
During the time since the Poll you cited americans have been exposed to more and more evidence of political corruption and weaponized lawfare.
During the time since that poll atleast some americans have heard the compelling legal arguements thaty Trump did NOT mishandle classified documents.
During the time since that poll americans have learned that Joe Biden has egregiously been misshandling classified documents, but that he will not be prosecuted because he is incompetent to stand Trial.
During that time people have learned that the left claims that the Trump case and the Biden case were different – have proven True – The Biden case is WORSE in every way.
Biden was not president when he mishadled classified documents,
He had not declassification authority Trump had total declassification authority.
Biden had no claim to the documents he mishandled.
The documents Trump is accused of mishandling are by all current law Trump’s property – including the classified documents.
Contra left claims Biden did not return these documents when they were discovered – waiting 40 years – or 6 months – if you are stupid enough to beleive the documents were “accidentally” taken.
We have learned that Biden actually shared classified content with uncleared parties – Trump did not.
We have learned that Biden for decades smeared classified documents all over the place reclessly, Trump’s documents were either in the SCIF in MAL or the presidents offices, regardless they were at all times protected – not just by the secret service – But by MAL’s own 24×7 security.
And on and one.
Yeah, the 46% who vote Democrat think that.
What started this eight-year hate fest?
Hillary Didn’t have to remember Hillary didn’t have to recall.
Hillary Knew beforehand she would escape the law.
With permission from Obama, Biden the FBI, DOJ, CIA and who’s to say maybe even the NSA.
Using FIVE EYES to enable the sway, it changed the narrative to go Hillary’ way.
Democrats became the leaders of the game knowing what was at stake.
The media outlets couldn’t wait to partake in a story they knew most likely was fake.
So, Russia, racism, resentment and hate became the meal served on our plates.
They spewed their lies far and wide on every network in the country they cried.
Donald Trump is a Russian stooge, his supporters, ignorant white supremist rubes.
The democrats mocked, ridiculed, stalked and abused, demanded Trump and his voters must be removed.
Harassed and physically abused the media laughed as their viewership grew.
Millions of happy people from all walks of life suddenly became the enemy in just one night.
Washington DC burned with rage the day Donald John Trump took to the stage.
Fires and violence took over the nights as people chanted their misdirected hate with delight.
Their extensive destruction appeared with the daylight.
Leave them alone, let them be, their expressing their rage democrats said with glee.
The most disturbing is that old school lawyers who once would have been disgusted by this kind of lawfare no longer protest their disgust. Seems to me they deny what is happening in and to their profession. So very sad.
ARKANSAS CONNECTIONS: A Time Line of the Clinton Years
https://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm
Trump Is ‘Honored’ By Indictments
The following remarks were part of a speech Trump gave 2 weeks ago in Rock Hill South Carolina.
***
“Every time the radical left Democrats, Marxists, communists and fascists indict me, I consider it, actually, a great badge of honor,” Trump said later in the rally.
Then, pointing at his temple with his right index finger, he quipped, “That’s a little different thinking up there, isn’t it? But it is what it is.”
Reiterating a key stump speech riff, Trump continued: “I’m being indicted for you. That’s what’s happened. Never forget our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom. I will never let it happen.”
He concluded the bit by portraying himself as a martyr, as he does at almost every rally.
“They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you,” Trump told his supporters. “And in the end, they’re not after me. They’re after you. I just happened to be standing in their way.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/11/trump-campaign-speech-anatomy/
………………………………………….
KEY PASSAGE ABOVE:
“They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you.”
***
This is what’s known as a ‘Christ complex’. Trump presents himself as a larger than life martyr taking abuse on behalf of all his followers.
It’s a message often used by cult leaders. The subtext is: “They’re all out to get us, but I will keep us safe”.
And yet everything he said is true. Go figure . . .
P.S. Don’t worry your pretty little head about Trump being a cult leader. He has never in his life sought to lead a religious community . . . only to lead America by implementing the fundamental American values of liberty, strength, peace, and prosperity.
Trump is correct- the Dems are going all out to jail as many Republicans as possible, and he is right that electing him might put a stop to this massive abuse of the legal process.. They are after 2000 J6ers, mostly for the crime of trespassing. On the basis of a single ambiguous phone call , Fani Willis indicted 19 people including many attorneys who were simply doing what attorneys do in representing controversial clients. Bannon, Navarro, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Giuliani— anyone in Trump’s orbit is a target. The objective is to intimidate all lawyers to scare away any considering representing Trump. Letitia James went after Trump’s three oldert kids in a bogus case concerning the owner’s guesstimate of what his properties might sell for, a case in which no lender lost a dime in any transaction with Trump. So yes, they are coming for all their opponents, and it won’t stop unless and until Trump is elected.
It’s going to come down to the intent of the GA laws outlawing election interference, and the federal laws outlawing impeding an official proceeding (or defrauding it to steer its course). Two juries will be the ones to decide if these laws are applicable to this case.
The argument I don’t buy is “they are just out to get me”. Imagine a bank robber trying out these defenses in the court of public opinion:
• The prosecutor hates me for who I am
• The bank never got robbed, it was stopped in progress, so what harm was done? The $ is still there.
• All the rich who have $ deposited in the bank don’t care a hoot about people like us who don’t have bank
accounts. They look down on us. And they are targeting me in order to target you….yes, they hate you.
• My lawyer told me it was legal to walk into the bank and “assertively ask” for $. I was following legal advice.
These types of defenses, based on emotional expressions of victimhood, cannot ever become accepted. Otherwise, there will be no rule-of-law anymore, and criminals will victimize the innocent at will.
Let’s do these trials, and let the juries decide. It’s OK if these cases drag on until after the election, just as long as the dirt that’s remained hidden comes out (if any) so voters are being snow-jobbed by the candidates. I include Biden Family influence peddling as needing to be fully exposed.
P;ease cite a GA law outlawing election interferance ?
Any law that is that broad is unconstitutionally vague.
There are laws of general applicability against say “Bribery” – Did Trump actually attempt to bribe anyone ?
There are laws against extortion – which is the use of force or the threat of force against someone to get something you want.
Did Trump threaten to use force against anyone ?
Attempting to overturn an election is lawful and protected first amendment speech.
10, 20, 1000 people can legally conspire so long as they do not conspire to act illegally.
Conspiracy and racketeering charges require doing to to commit an underlying crime – what crime would that be ?
The J6, GA, and NY/Bragg cases all have the core problem that there is no underlying crime.
While SOMETIMES we have bad laws – even criminal laws that go far beyond the legitimate power of government,
atleast 95% of our criminal laws REQUIRE the use of force or deceit in some form to actually harm another.
Not only was no one harmed by anything that Trump actually did, No one COULD have been harmed by what Trump actually did.
You can not criminalize your fear of what Trump MIGHT have done. Only what he has actually done.
If you actually beleive in the rule of law – then lets start at the top.
Do not charge as crimes acts that are clearly not crimes, many of which are protected first amendment speech.
Do not deny the defendants “due process”.
And do not try to game the system by using politically motivated prosecutors, and judges to conduct trials in places where the defendant is hated.
The Supreme court overturned the conviction of Sam Shepard 70 years ago over exactly that in a case far less egregious.
If you want to claim you are following “the rule of law”.
Then stop this rush to judgement. As Turley correctly points out – If any of the Trump cases actually reach Trial before the election – that would be extraordinarily rushed. Hunter Biden has been facing charges for almost a decade. No one expects he will get to court before the election.
If you do not like Trump’s motions and appeals – let them be decided by the courts.
And accept the fact that if the supreme court or any other court that is not required to hear an appeal choses to do so,
that is proof that the motion is not frivolous, that it has merit and needs carefully considered.
The Supreme court was rushed in the 2000 election decision and the result was a decision that was poorly crafted and provided no guidance. The Supreme court was equally rushed in the recent Colorado case – and fortunately did an EXCELENT job – that is very rare when the judicial system caves to outside pressure and is rushed. Frankly the Supreme court should have pushed the decision until next term and then declared it moot. The court should NOT have allowed itself to be rushed – regardless they did a good job.
Jack Smith should not have tried to jump the queue in Trump’s immunity appeal. The court appropriately Biden slapped him.
The DC court of appeals in contrast rushed their decision – and it shows. On the whole they accepted every argument Trump made and then proposed an undefined “balancing test to establish on a case by case basis where immunity applied.
That is a very stupid approach that SCOTUS is with certainty going to reject. The DC court of appeals should have spent much more time on this and regardless of their decision should have made a much better one and provided SCOTUS a better record.
Due Process requires that the defense can challenge the prosecution at the time of their choosing over the issues of their choosing and that the courts MUST take those challenges seriously.
Most of Trumps current appeals are very serious legal issues – often cases of first impression and would normally take months.
It took the supreme court alone 2 years to decide the issue of presidential civil immunity.
Presidential criminal immunity is far more complex. The Supreme court was Right to take the case. They were wrong to give it expedited treatment.
Regardless the Supreme court should be remanding many of these appeals back to the lower courts with direction to put in the effort to properly consider the arguments and issues and law and not rush to judgement.
That is how due process works.
The press and Pundits are correct that an election is NOT a proper bar to proceding with a criminal case.
It is also NOT a legitimate justification for expediting the case or giving due process short shrift.
At the same time – while an election should not bar a criminal prosecution, the courts MUST make reasonable accommodation to the demands of the election. Contra Chutkan the courts Can not ignore and can not interfere with the election itself.
At a minimum that means the courts schedule must defer to the election schedule.
But it is also arguable that the court may need to defer entirely.
A plurality of people are seeing this as politically motivated – that is REALLY bad.
That undermines trust in our institution, And doing so is dangerous.
Those on the left do not seem to grasp that the actual legitimacy of government, the courts, elections themselves rests on the trust of the people. If 47% of people beleive this is political – then it is not legitimate PERIOD.
Your bank robber analogy would be valid if:
We were dealing with a prosecution for bank robbery or any other event in which there was little doubt that an actual crime occured and the only question was whether the defendant committed that crime.
I would note that you can perfectly legally plan a bankrobbery – that is NOT a crime.
To be prosecuted you must commit one ACT in furtherance of the plan.
Once that has occured you can be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit bank robbery.
However if you are NOT arrested, AND you start to ACT to stop the bank robbery before it takes place
you are no longer guilty of a crime. Until you commit the first Clearly unlawful act – like entering the bank with guns,
you are free to back out. That is not merely the law, it is how we WANT the law to be.
We WANT potential criminals to KNOW that at anypoint prior to committing the ACTUAL crime, that they can back out
The goal of our justice system is not to lock people up, but to prevent crimes.
Next, the prosecutor hates me for who I am is a perfectly legitimate defence.
Normally it is one that is difficult to impossible to prove.
But actual animus on the part of a prosecutor, or illegitimate motives is a legitimate basis to disqualify the prosecutor.
That happens rarely, because actual animus and illegitmate motives are rare.
Due process, the elimination of biased prosecutors and judges and the requirements for fair juries do NOT
prevent prosecution for actual crimes. Following the rule of law very very rarely results in the wrong outcome.
Though it is still better than ten guilty go free than one innocent is punished.
But failing to follow due process not only results in the conviction of the innocent, but it severely damages the trust in our institutions that is the basis for their legitimacy.
Government does not exist without the censent of the governed – that is the lesson of every govenrment collapse and revolution.
In a bank robbery actual harm is done when force or the threat of force are used illegitimately.
The actual harm standard is met when you barge through the doors with masks and guns and demand something that is not yours.
You do not seem to grasp that you can not call any conduct that you want a crime.
The requirement for harm is the foundation of criminal law.
Government may not punish people for acts that can not cause harm.
I would note in your Bank Robber scenario – if the robbers barged in masked and armed demanded money and then changed their minds and left on their own – they would be guilty of attempted robbery – a LESSOR crime.
Why ? because though there is real harm – the harm is smaller.
Regardless, the point is that ALL crimes require atleast the attempt to intentionally actually harm individuals without justification.
Outside the left most of us understand that you can not criminalize any conduct or speech that you do not like
“My lawyer told me it was legal to walk into the bank and “assertively ask” for $. I was following legal advice.”
As you have written it that defense would be legitimate.
You can legally walk into a bank and demand $1000.
You can demand anything you want.
What you can not do it induce or coerce.
You can not tell the clerk – “give me $10000 and I will give you $100. ”
You can not tell the clerk – “give me $10000 or I will shoot you”
You can tell the clerk – “give me $10000 or I will dance naked in the lobby”,
though you will likely be arrested for indecent exposure – NOT bank robbery.
Words matter – there is no Crime of “assertively asking” – we are free to be as assertive as we wish
We are not free to coerce or induce others to give us what is not ours.
I would note that we ARE allowed to do SOME coercion or inducement to get what is ours.
“pay your rent, or I will evict you” is perfectly legal.
“These types of defenses, based on emotional expressions of victimhood, cannot ever become accepted. ”
Correct, but the only operative word is emotional.
Actual victimhood is in many cases a defense – it is called SELF DEFENCE.
Using the Trump GA case as an example. Trump is perfectly free to claim as a defense that Reffensberger had illegally counted ballots.
Your logical skills are incredibly poor, the defintion of a crime that you are using would make all prosecutors guilty of crimes, and would litterally destroy the rule of law.
We are barred from using force against others for most reasons. We are generally NOT barred from using force to thwart the illegitimate use of force by others.
Not only is “I am a victim” in many instances a valid defense, But “I am defending a victim” is also.
My point is that you are making broad generalizations that do not hold and in many instances have more exceptions than not.
Being “assertive” does not make something a crime – even coercion and inducement do not ALWAYS constitute a crime.
Even the use of or threat of FORCE are not ALWAYS a crime.
Even meeting the requirement for HARM does not ALWAYS constitute a crime.
We allow juries to decide questions of fact.
Did person A rob the bank.
We do not put questions of law to juries.
We do not allow Juries to decide is “assertive” speech is a crime – it is not.
When the courts have not resolved all questions of law prior to a case going to a jury – THAT is lawless.
So much to unpack, The law that you keep calling the “official proceeding law” – is a law about the destruction of documents.
It if actually was the law that you claim it is – it would be unconstitutionally overbraod and a violation of the first amendment.
We already KNOW there are almost certainly 4 SCOTUS votes to strike 1512c – which ends most of your J6 convictions and 3 of the 4 J6 charges against Trump. The 3rd has the same 1st amendment problems as the 1512C charges.
And no the question is NOT about the “intent” of the GA law.
Statutory interpretation – especially criminal statutory interpretation starts with the plain text of the law. Where language has changed – the plain text at the time the law was ratified.
With government power read narrowly and individual rights read broadly.
If that is still ambiguous the NEXT level is to examine how the law was applied shortly after being enacted.
I would strongly suggest reading the A14S3 decision of the supreme court it is a reasonable primer on statutory interpretation.
Did the actual person Jesus Christ, have a “Christ complex”.
It is not a “christ complex” when those in power are actually trying to abuse that power to crucify you.
If you do not want Trump to be a “Christ figure”
You should not have cast yourselves in the roles of Pilate and the Sanhedrin.
“You should not have cast yourselves in the roles of Pilate and the Sanhedrin.”
John, you understand the Sanhedrin, but others might misinterpret your words. The Sanhedrin could have nothing to do with Jesus’s death. It would have been illegal for many reasons and would have broken the Sabbath. That potential claim made by some is wrong based on historical facts.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”
This theme has been around since the 50’s
What Trump is illustrating is true. Obama Biden spied on Trump. But guess what, the last FISA warrant audit found 702 lookups conducted were illegal +80% of the time and the FBI was responsible for over 80% of the illegal 702 spying on US citizens.
And yet, his “Christ complex” is turning out to be remarkably prescient. He is literally risking his life for the country he loves, and this is — hard as you find it to accept — Christlike.
As for the use of the word “cult,” well, you’ve had nine solid years to work out what wins him this unwavering support, yet you aggressively persist in being ignorant. Go figure.
Do you have a degree in psychology or psychiatry that allows you to make such a diagnosis? I’m thinking not.
January 20th 2025. Chief justice Robert’s. Do you Donald Trump solemnly swear to uphold the the office of president of the United States of America? Trump answers, I do. Congratulations Mr. President.
And will we see another video of some . . . person, with thick glasses, some kind of black knit hat, tears streaming down his/her face as it screams at the sky in agony?
I hope so!! 🙂
Or, seriously, will we see protests that turn into riots, kinda like the last time?
Upstate – I think we’ll see both. I will be extremely surprised if a Trump victory in November does not precipitate violent mob riots resulting in widescale death and injury to persons, and billions in property damage. The Left will make the Right seem like rank amateurs in the insurrection department.
THE ANSWER IS NO
_______________________
“Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place?”
“But Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that Garland lacked the power to appoint Smith because the attorney general has no authority to appoint a ‘private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.’
“First, they point out that there is no federal statute establishing an ‘Office of Special Counsel in DOJ.’ Second, even if one ignores the absence of such a specific statute, there is also no statute authorizing the ‘Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.’
“The special counsel, they note, has more power that any of the 94 U.S. Attorneys who prosecute cases across the country. Their authority is limited to the jurisdictions in which they are appointed. Moreover, U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the president and have to be approved by the Senate under the Appointments Clause in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution.
“Yet Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions, and indeed has indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions (D.C. and Florida), and was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This, according to the amicus brief, violates basic constitutional requirements.
“The former attorney general and his colleagues acknowledge ‘there are times when the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate.’ But federal ‘statutes and the Constitution’ only allow such appointments through ‘the use of existing United States Attorneys.’ They cite the appointments as special counsels of Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and John Durham, all of whom were Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys at the time of their appointments, as examples of valid and lawful appointments.
“But what the law and the Constitution ‘do not allow,’ argues the brief, ‘is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.’ ‘Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute,” and there is no such statute giving Attorney General Merrick Garland such authority to appoint an ‘inferior officer’ like the special counsel.”
– The Heritage Foundation
When will SCOTUS rule on the Meese brief or petition? Or is this just something to consider in the case before the court?
Since Meese wrote an amicus brief, it will not be ruled upon, but it may be considered as they make their ruling
It was not a question before the court. It is unlikely that SCOTUS will address it until it is. It is my understanding that one of Trump’s FL motions is challenging Smith’s appointment. That could bring this to the supreme court.
I think that SCOTUS should toss Smith. It was not hard for Garland to avoid this problem, all he had to do was elevate an existing US Attorney as he did with Weiss and Hur.
But if I were to bet – though they may use the case to delay everything until after the election and then decide it is moot, I do not think they will toss Smith, even though they should. At the same time they are not going to say Smith’s appointment was valid either.
While Trump relishes victory over WWE CEO Vince McMahon, “Stone Cold” Steve Austin ambushes Donald in a cowardly attack.
https://www.wwe.com/videos/stone-cold-steve-austin-nails-donald-trump-with-the-stunner-wrestlemania-23
Most of (I didn’t read ’em all) the comments seem to ignore the simple fact that the 2020 election was a “fraud”. Funny/not funny.
I didn’t “ignore” the 2020 election. I’m just dealing in 2024 rather than continuing to gripe about something that has happened and is over. No matter what our opinions re that election, we need to deal with the present.
“griping about something that happened in the past” applies to your boss picking someone he thought better qualified than you for a promotion. Griping about systemic fraud and corruption in Washington DC and every place there are Democrats in charge, or just roaming around, is not the same. If the elections are patently corrupt, since who knows how long, how can you stick your head in the sand and say let’s “deal with the present”?
I’m not concerned about the rape in 2020 I’m focused on being raped in 2024. Ya, real wisdom.
Not wisdom, deflection. Pretty typical.
Gary is correct, you cannot redo the past, but unless you’ve given up and thrown in the towel, you can still work to make 2024 a fair election. Where do you see avenues for ballot fraud? Call up your county elections office, and go through each type of fraud, one by one, asking what counter-measures exist to detect it.
Oh, not really that interested in PREVENTING ballot fraud while there are still 8 months left to do it? That shows your true colors.
Past victimhood is a cozy place for escapists…you can dodge responsibility completely for the future, and just whinge on about some slight that can never be redressed. It’s got “loser” written all over it.
But, I retract that accusation if you call your election office and pepper them with your sincere concerns about Nov 5, 2024.
One can be concerned about both and do both. If we just forget about the past we’re doomed. We need to seek justice for wrongs done in the past while also trying our best to prevent them from being repeated in the future. Denying those injustices is a new injustice to the victims.
We have statutes of limitations for a reason.
We do not hold sons and daughters accountable for the sins of their fathers.
Like it or not we can not remedy past injustices.
In fact we really can not remedy current ones.
If real harm has been done to you – no one can put your life back together but you.
Getting over the past is not denying injustice.
The victims of the past are long dead, they will get no more justice than they have already received.
We can not relitigate the sins of the world back to Cain and Able.
We still we can not play this stupid games of heirarchical victimhood.
While you are correct that we should strive to avoid repeating the injustices of the past – we are actually pretty good at that.
Further whether past or present as important as fighting and preventing injustice might be, it does not make us all that much better off. We can destroy society with too much injustice. But acheiving perfect justice is not nearly sufficient to make us better off.
We can not and should not try to redress past injustices – though they are among the MANY things we should learn from.
Regardless justice itself is a luxury good that can only be afforded by a productive society.
Some of what you are asking is already being done. But most of the problems with election fraud are structural.
There is absolutley possitively no means to have a secure trustworthy secret ballot election with mailin voting.
It is possible to reduce mailin voting fraud, it is even more possible if you eliminatge the requirement of secret ballot elections.
Though that introduces all kinds of new forms of election fraud.
If you want elections to be trusted – you have to conduct elections such that they are trustworthy.
The means to improve the trustworthness of elections is really not that difficult to understand.
There are a number of independent principles.
Secret ballot elections do the best possible job of reducing inducement and coercion – these were rampant in the 19th century.
With secret balloting – you can not buy votes, you can not threaten people to get votes, you can not leverage jobs.
You government, your party, your boss, your spouse your children your friends all have no way to compel you to vote a specific way because secret ballots mean they will never know how you voted.
The KISS principle applies to most things – especially elections.
If you allow vote by mail, absentee voting, early voting and in person voting on the day of the election
you have myriads of vectors for fraud, error, and complexity.
Every different means of voting you interduce increases the oportunities for fraud exponentially and decreases the odds of getting caught.
As bad an idea as mailin elections are the combination of mailin and inperson is actually worse.
It is also important to determine what you aretrying to accomplish and how you are going to deal with it.
What does reducing fraud mean ? Are you looking to reduce the possiblity of a few individuals voting twice, or are you looking to reduce the possibility of injecting 80,000 fraudulent ballots. Detecting and preventing the former is far harder than the latter.
Are you looking to make fraud impossible – that is really really tough.
Alternatively you can settle for making fraud detectable.
The best and easiest means of preventing fraud is to have detection measures and consequences.
While there are many ways to detect fraud – of course you have to impliment them, and once implimented – you have to do so rigourously and with consequences.
In Cobb County GA a random audit of mailin ballot envelopes found that 6% failed to meet the fraud prevention standards.
Were all 6% fraudulent – probably not, but 0.6% were beyond any doubt fraudulent.
So what was done about this ? NOTHING.
It is absolutely essential that you have error reducing laws and processes and that they are followed.
Because where you have high error rates you have much greater oportunity for Fraud.
Until the courts are willing to say – hundreds of ballots did not meet legal standards and will be disregarded , you can expect that election officials will not care about errors, and most errors open the door from fraud or they destroy the effectiuveness of anti-fraud measures.
The above and many other issues drive us to confront SCALE.
If a precinct with 15,000 ballots fails audits and security measures there is a small possibility that the courts will toss the ballots of the entire precinct. If on the other hand you have massive county wide systems in counties will millions of voters – no judge is going to have the courage to reject 2million ballots no matter what is found.
handling everything in small precincts will likely have greater overall fraud and error, but neither the fraud nor error will heavily go one way. Conversely dealing with millions of ballots in one place – is a gigantic flare begging for organized large scale fraud and radically increases the odds of getting away with it.
To the greatest extent possible you want counting done in the smallest units as possible, as close in both time and space to actually voting as possible, you want all counting operations public, and you want counting results reported quickly – again as close in time and place as possible to actually voting.
There is almost no need at all to protect the counting infrastucture – if the raw counts are publicly reported at the lowest possible level. The media will have worked out the winners long before the state, and if the official tally disagrees substantially that means there was fraud.
Nothing I have described about should be partisan or even controversial.
Designing a system where fraud is imposible can not be done.
Designing a system that is far better than what we have and can be trusted is trivial.
Vote in person on election day only, with proof of eligability to vote, only at the polls, only on ballots preprinted by the state that never leave the polls. Vote in precincts with no more than 15,000 voters. count ballots in public by hand immediately after the polls close in the precinct and publicly report all tallies as soon as groups of ballots are counted.
When you say “fact” you really mean “Shit Trump made up.”
Sammy, did you see more evidence and facts the Jan6th Committee tried to cover up?
Democrats’ Jan. 6 panel withheld crucial evidence, including denial from Trump driver
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/democrats-jan-6-panel-withheld-crucial-evidence-including-denial-trump-driver
More and more of your attempted coup narrative is falling apart!
Upstate – whenever Sammy says “sh*t someone made up,” he’s making up sh*t. You can count on that.
Sometimes I play along, but I know you can’t actually believe there was no attempted coup. No one is that gullible.
The REAL coup was the Russian Collusion Hoax and the spying on Trump by Obama. The media ran with the lies and have half of America believing the propaganda they spewed. Prime example…Sammy.
An unarmed coup to take over the most powerful government on the planet? That is what you actually believe?
lololol. Sammy, again, maybe you are simply trying to play devil’s advocate or get a job at Perkins, but know that no one is buying your BS.
If you think some assertion of fact is “made up” – make that argument – provide actual facts that counter or disprove the assertion.
Insulting an argument is not a counter argument and to the extent it is persuasive, it persuades that the allegedly made up assertion is likely correct.