The Washington Post is reporting that Special Counsel Jack Smith may try to convict former president Donald Trump all the way through the election and up to 11:59 am on January 20th. After the oath, the Justice Department has long maintained that it will not prosecute a sitting president.
There is also a long-standing policy of the Justice Department to abstain from criminal proceedings before an election to avoid the appearance of trying to influence the outcome. Smith has signaled that he will discard that policy and that he is prepared to try Trump not only up to the election but through the election.
He is now reportedly willing to try Trump up to January 20th.
Smith has made trying Trump before the election the overriding priority in his two cases against the former president. He failed repeatedly to force a shorter schedule on appeal before the Supreme Court. His arguments were revealing. He suggested that the public should have a possible conviction before they cast their votes. It flipped the DOJ policy on its head in openly seeking to influence the election.
The Supreme Court was not persuaded, though Smith did succeed in effectively cutting the appellate process a bit shorter. He then lost in spectacular fashion before the Court on presidential immunity.
According to the Post, he is not giving up the ghost and is now committed to a trial running up to Inauguration Day: “Current officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, expressed … that if Trump wins the election, the clock on the two federal cases against him would keep ticking until Jan. 20, when he would be sworn in as the 47th president.”
Even with Smith’s continued push to try Trump at all costs before the Inauguration, it could be a challenge. There is a 30-day period before the Supreme Court case is effectively returned to district court.
Judge Tanya Chutkan has been highly favorable for Smith and highly motivated in seeking a trial before the election. That led to problems highlighted in the recent opinion. Chutkan was so motivated that she failed to create an adequate record on these issues. That record will now have to be established.
If Chutkan rules as she did earlier, she is expected to be hostile to Trump’s claims on his conduct falling within official functions. However, she will need to make the record and her decision could again be appealed. The Court left clear guidelines that will make it difficult for Chutkan to, again, dismiss such claims.
Moreover, the pre-trial motions were stopped with the latest appeal. They must now be addressed. Finally, she pledged to give the Trump team over 80 days for preparation after the appeal, which will be added to the 30 days, the period for the remand record, and the pre-trial motions.
There is also the need for the court and Smith to deal with the Fischer decision limiting the use of the obstruction charges — impacting two of the four counts against Trump. As I have previously written, Smith has various options but could trigger a new reversal on appeal if he follows his signature inclination to resist legal limits.
In other words, Smith’s appetite for a trial before the Inauguration may exceed his ability to force that expedited schedule.
Turley wants to expound on longstanding policies. But what about our other long-standing policies like equal justice under the law and the president not stealing classified documents, paying off women he’s had sex with and falsifying business records to cover it up, accepting the results of an election and not fomenting violence, and not trying to rig the election? The American public has the right to vindication of our laws—Trump’s candidacy does not override this right.
Today’s post is just another MAGA media effort to deflect attention away from Trump’s criminality and another attack on Jack Smith for seeking justice.
Let’s see. Trump did not ‘steal’ classified documents. He had legitimate possession of them and was negotiating with the archives about transferring them. Unlike Biden who possessed classified documents illegally. Maybe he had sex with some women, maybe not. He did want to keep those possibly false claims from his wife. Other presidents (i.e. JFK) depended on the Secret Service to not disclose that they smuggled prostitutes into the White House for him, not to mention attempting to seduce and seducing White House volunteers (JFK and Clinton). Perhaps there were business records that were incorrect, like Hillary claiming her payment for ginning up the Russian collusion document was a legal payment, but that is a misdemeanor and was outside the statue of limitations, just like many of Hunter’s tax violations. If calling upon your supporters to ‘go and demonstrate peacefully’ is fomenting violence then there are lots of people who should be prosecuted right now.
Poor Gigi.
I see you have time for more lies, but not time to answer for yesterdays lies.
Say hello to your cubicle mate, the puppy count guy.
It really sux to be you right now, doesnt it.
Gigi, why does the singular upvote always appear right after you post a comment? Use your brain, wait a few minutes.
Trump stole no documents. He was entitled to possess them when he took them to Mar-a-Lago.
Contrast with Biden, whose Penn-Biden center didn’t even exist when he left office.Transporting those classified documents there as a civilian unambiguously violated the Espionage Act.
It is obvious from reading the Sotomayor dissent (if such a mindless and venal rant can be characterized thus) that these 3 “ladies” are so overcome with TDS that they could not grasp any of the legal arguments made by the majority. Sotomayor used words like alleged, presumed, charged continuosly to characterize Trumps thoughts, actions and beliefs showing a bias so obvious as to disqualify her completely. Her dissent was so clearly a statement of her belief that Trump is guilty and thus legal niceties like immunity shouldn’t apply and they should just proceed to sentencing.
One thing Dems are great at and that is identifying partisan hacks to place on one court or another.
Ironically, Sotomayor’s dissent was based more on textualist and originalist interpretation than the majority’s.
She cited literally what was said in arguments before the court. Justice Roberts made a huge mess in order to ‘back up’ Trump.
It was telling that Roberts never gave any example of what constitutes an official act and what isn’t. He intentionally left that vague so he can later rule that Chutkan’s views on what constitutes an official act can be reversed if her ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is already clearly biased towards Trump.
People may not realize that this ruling may actually help Biden get elected. Republicans are not looking good on maintaining a majority in the house. That could pose a problem if Trump is elected.
Georgie boy, A couple of truisms: first, denial is not a river in Africa, and second, TDS is lethal….seek help!
“People may not realize that this ruling may actually help Biden get elected.”
I do love your ability to ignore reality in favor of your fever dreams
The hysteria on the left is once again turning voters off. Instead of calmly making their case, they’re postulating insane scenarios where the President somehow convinces the 100 some odd people between him and a seal team 6 member, to assassinate a former American President. And they screech that the only thing that ever kept this from happening was lack of immunity.
Sane people are laughing and shaking their heads.
Biden called criticism of the justice system for rulings we dont like “dangerous and irresponsible” and then a month later said the supreme court is “undermining the rule of law”
But you think voters will want more of THAT?
The CNN poll is reality. 6 points! What kind of idiot thinks a republican could be up that far and lose the house lol. Snap out of it man!! At this point, Biden could end up winning only California. You should begin your acceptance phase now. It might help you cope better with the rioting to come by the left.
I dont know what you’re cooking up in your pea brain about the house somehow changing hands if Trump is elected. Or if it did, what “problem” you think it poses.
Being overly cocky this early is very risky waters. A LOT can still happen between now and Nov. lots of polls will show lots of scenarios that are still not guaranteed.
Trump supporters ignored reality a long time ago.
At least one of those three ‘ladies’ would probably be upset with your use of that term in describing them.
Well, as one of these three idiots has quipped, “I am not a biologist!”
For more than 1000 years, civilized society has attempted to reach a civilized justice system using past precedent (past court rulings). The American system was unique in that we follow past precedent – with one exception – constitutionality” supersedes unconstitutional precedent.
The roots of our constitutional crisis in America really started at the turn of the 20th Century into the mid-20th Century.
At inception, when created, the Executive Branch agencies were legally required to “circumscribe” the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the Justice Department was legally required (when created) to follow the U.S. Constitution not protect government officials violating the U.S. Constitution.
At first, the DOJ followed this constitutional and legal requirement, indicting and prosecuting local officials that were disloyal to their Oath of Office under Jim Crow laws.
Then the DOJ, violated this constitutional requirement. DOJ refused to criminally prosecute then FBI Director using Cointelpro blacklisting tactics against Christian Minister Martin Luther King, Jr. DOJ started practicing “selective” enforcement of laws which is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Same chronological precedent exists for other Executive Branch agencies DHS, DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. These security/intelligence agencies were required at creation to follow the U.S. Constitution.
The good news: members of Congress can blame J. Edgar Hoover and Harry Truman for this huge tangled mess. Members of Congress have political cover to reform the American system – if they have the will and backbone to reform this broken system.
Is this “news’ from the Washington Post a surprise? Well it probably is because it seemed that the turmoil of the failing Washington Post (not Trump saying this, Bezos new hires for editor and publisher said that. “Also people are not reading your s—t”) would have prevented any cogent columns or analysis coming from the place.
Jack Smith was hired to “get Trump” no matter what. Smith has about the tenor of the dying Ahab, trapped on the back of Moby Dick.
“To the last I grapple with thee, from hell’s heart I stab at thee, for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee”. And look what happened to him as he disappeared under the waves to grapple with eternity and Mob Dick swam on.
In a recent filing, Smith asserted that he is highly supervised by the DOJ . . . Ie: Merritt Garland. So, is it Jack Smith or Merritt Garland who’s ignoring DOJ policies?
The best advice for President Trump is to leave the country, play a lot of golf and stay out of public view. The Biden administration is imploding of its own accord and is in full panic mode.
We are missing the point here. The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Supreme Court need major reforms – so no president and no political party has influence over them. Both institutions need to be independent from politics.
We don’t want a Trump or Biden justice system. We need a constitutional justice system.
Sigh, the DOJ policy is about STARTING an investigation into a president before an election. Smiths investigation started almost two years ago. It’s no longer an investigation. Charges have already been filed. Court proceedings are ongoing.
Meaning Smith CAN continue well into the election and after, right up to Jan 20.
“[T]he DOJ policy is about STARTING an investigation into a president before an election.”
That’s a lie. (Imagine that.)
The DOJ started their investigation on Trump well before the election. They are now on pre-trial motions. Charges have already been filed. Stopping because an election is near is not required by law.
Trump CAN still be prosecuted while he’s campaigning.
Wait till he wins the Presidential election. I never voted for him, but if he considers pursuing DNC / MSM ala lawfare vis a via those who ruined America, I’ll visit as many cemeteries as it takes to get out the vote, so much so that even Marc Elias would blush
Lol i notice you say can. But
do you imagine Smith will keep going even when Trump wins the election? LMAO.
Is that because wasting taxpayers money is what special counsels do best?
I do love this new coping mechanism you have. Just imagine all sorts of impossible and implausible scenarios.
Its July bro. You might want to start accepting the inevitable.
Except that it’s Biden who’s bringing these cases before the court which should not be occurring at all. Congress cannot legislate the corruption from the Democrat party or its determination to break the back of American justice to its own political purpose. Which, let’s face it, is a cornerstone, just as free and fair elections are.
Jack Smith’s agenda is Jack Smith as with others of his ilk such as Andrew Weissman. Make your bones on the ashes of others and damned the torpedos. Nothing would serve better than the Meese Amici Curiae be deemed accurate and true so as to cut his legs out from under him.
Probably, the best thing is for Jack Smith to lose on the merits. If they replace him, then it will just drag things out even more.
“. . . the clock on the two federal cases against him would keep ticking until Jan. 20 . . .”
Why stop on Jan. 20? We’ve already learned from the Left that for Trump the clock tolls indefinitely.
Sam, with one exception: the clock that tracks the statute of limitations is forever stopped when it comes to Mr. Trump.
“Sam . . .”
That’s what I said. “Tolls” in this context means stops.
That’s rich, because I am sure the new AG will be starting their own investigations on trying Jack Smith and Merrick Garland about that same time.
Traveler, and if that happens most here will apply the same level of interest in the protections of their rights. Perhaps even more so.
I doubt that when the evidence of their deception is disclosed. Everyone with a working brain wants these criminals arrested and prosecuted. Communism is a disease, 58,150 Americans believed that and died fighting against it in 1963-1975 and those that understood it then understand it today.
This says it all: “Chutkan was so motivated that she failed to create an adequate record on these issues. That record will now have to be established.”
Another DEI loser fails to do the job expected of them.
And the knuckle dragging Jack Smith marches on to the land of Infamy and Ignominy…dragging his party sycophants with him. However, they do have one inherent advantage: their low brow configuration easily hides the word ‘loser’ stamped upon their foreheads.
Jack Smith is like a rabid wind-em-up attack dog that needs to be put down. Nought already w this unconstitutionally appointed fool.
Haven’t heard, has Judge Cannon issued a decision on whether Jack Smith is a legitimate special prosecutor?
The DOJ policy does not apply to Trump. It only applies to SITTING presidents. Not private citizens. It’s only a policy, not a law. Trump was charged AFTER he left the office of the president. Smith is well within his authority to continue to pursue the case right up to Jan. 20.
Judge Chutkan can expedite the case if she wants to. Because she can resolve what is and isn’t an official act rather quickly. If the Supreme Court took less than a week to decide trump could remain on the ballot then Chutkan can move just as expeditiously.
Of course that’s assuming Trump does win the election. If he loses Smith will have all the time he wants to prosecute Trump.
” It only applies to SITTING presidents. “??????
Oh, OK I get it. When TWO sitting Presidents face each other in an election, then the DOJ policy applies. . . (face palm)
There is only ONE sitting President. ONE Presidential candidate.
Trump is NOT President. He’s a FORMER President, a private citizen. The DOJ policy does not apply to Trump.
But it applied to hillary?
“Smith is well within his authority”
Wake up bud, that is exactly the question now before the court.
Smith’s authority is now being questioned. Did Garland try to pull a fast one or was he totally unfamiliar with the Appointments cause, this former nominee for SCOTUS?
Answer your own question with the following in mind:
-Garland had his FBI go after parents that confronted school boards
-Garland had his FBI monitor the Catholic Church
-Garland and his DOJ pursue J6 trespassers with an absolute vengeance
-Garland had Joe Biden claim ‘immunity’ for the recordings of the Hur interview with Biden
-Garland’s DOJ released a ‘doctored’ written version of the Hur interview with Biden
-Garland’s DOJ initially worked a plea deal with Hunter Biden so as to essentially let him walk in the Delaware case
-Garland’s DOJ/DOJ proxies carried out SWAT raids on Trump for documents but din not do so with Biden (despite Biden’s incompetence that has to be obvious to Garland) in spite of known financial connections between Biden’s family and foreign enemies, large volume of illegally retained documents involved. Not to mention Garland likely knew Biden gave ‘secret info’ to his ghost writer and was paid millions to do so.
Do these actions seem like those of a former federal judge that is totally unfamiliar with the document that was the basis for all of his decisions as a judge? Or are these action those of a political hack that happened to be a judge?
Past time for clowns like Lindsey Graham that do NOT step up to their constitutional responsibility of investigating and evaluating nominations to the federal bench. Fail that and you get stooges like Garland.
“The DOJ policy does not apply to Trump. It only applies to SITTING presidents.”
“. . . the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of *candidates* close to an election.” (JT, emphasis added)
Last I checked, Trump is a *candidate*. And you’re still deceptive.
Smith is no longer investigating. He’s prosecuting. Charges were filed last year. Thats not “close to an election.” No trial is scheduled, yet. However it’s still only a policy. Not a law. Smith or Garland can still choose to make an exemption because it’s only a policy. There is no criminal punishment for violating it or choosing to ignore it.
Now, with the Supreme Court’s ruling Biden CAN order the DOJ to ignore the policy and continue prosecuting Trump without consequence.
Notice how quickly george changed his story
This guy is definitely Svelaz
“Smith is no longer investigating. He’s prosecuting.”
Deceive via pedantry.
Imagine that.
“There is also a long-standing policy of the Justice Department to abstain from criminal proceedings before an election to avoid the appearance of trying to influence the outcome. Smith has signaled that he will discard that policy and that he is prepared to try Trump not only up to the election but through the election.”
Didn’t Biden and Democrats campaign on “bringing back norms!” and “adults in the room!” or something like that?
Put a fork in Biden, he is done.
The panic is palpable, the emesis is visceral, the schadenfreude exceptional
😉
Biden should not just drop out of the race. He should resign
https://thehill.com/opinion/4750336-biden-resign-presidency-campaign/
“Jamie Barnett is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy …served during the Obama administration”
Estovir,
Yes it is!
Gets even better, Donald Trump is going to win the election and democracy will be just fine
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-contributor/jared-golden-donald-trump-going-to-win-election-democracy-be-just-fine/
The policy has always been to not begin criminal proceedings just prior to an election. I’d say you can’t possibly think the policy is that the policy is if the defendant can delay the proceedings until close to the election that the process must be halted and if the statute of limitations runs out they can’t be prosecuted at all, but that’s probably exactly what you mean.
The SOL is immaterial once indicted dum dum.
You truly are not very bright, Enema.
Step in doo doo much at home?
The DOJ’s policy is not a law. Trump was charged after he left office as a private citizen. Trump is STILL a private citizen up until 11:59 pm on Jan 20.
Plus the recent SCOTUS ruling allows Biden to use the DOJ against Trump legally without fear of prosecution. Biden is fully immune to investigate and prosecute Trump up till Jan 20 without consequence. Because it’s an official act. “Violating” the policy is no longer an issue thanks to Justice Roberts opinion. Nothing related to official acts can be used as evidence against Biden. Even if Trump wins.
The Democrats should run Obama again.
Why bother? We’re suffering through Obama’s 3rd term now.
I voted for Trump in 2016, but my views on things have changed a lot in 8 years. I would rather vote for a Democrat like Obama than Trump. Life was okay during the Obama years. And Obama would do more for Ukraine than Trump would.
“Change is coming” can be an insidious, evolutionary process. Obama had learned well from his sociopolitical and economic influences. Biden has pushed it to such excess that he wakened the masses who would otherwise have slept through it. They are pushing back hard.
Obama would do more for Iran, hama and hezbollah. What exactly did he do for Ukraine the first time? Didn’t Russia take a little piece of Ukraine as Obama was sending blankets? Try harder.
My comment was meant to be addressed to Anonymous above saying he would vote for Obama.
You are a liar. You didnt vote for trump in 2016.
NO ONE with your values would ever vote for Trump
The Law, once weaponized and no longer focused on Justice, becomes a joke to the American People. It loses credibility, respect and support. That’s where we are today. Even worse, the Law is now perceived as the enemy of the People. Perhaps that’s good.
I observed that the government does very little to protect you from misery makers, but if
you take matters into your own hands, the government will protect the misery makers from you.
That’s why we still have a left wing in this nation, the only reason.
Not the only reason, tbf, there are also a $hiton of poorly educated white women hopped up on xanax, etc.
…and by poorly educated, I mean college grads
“After the oath, the Justice Department has long maintained that it will not prosecute a sitting president.” – the Justice Department has abandoned all semblance of operating under the law, I can easily forsee the trial being held after inauguration. After all, Congress had long maintained it would not impeach a former president…..
It’s not a law, it’s a policy. Plus Trump is NOT a sitting President. Smith is not violating anything.
“An unconstitutional special prosecutor and a former president walk into the bar…”
Sounds like the beginning of a very bad legal joke.
Does anyone remember the concept of “malicious prosecution?”
Republican James Comey created a new & improved precedent when he helped defeat Hillary Clinton by violating Department of Justice rules. Jack Smith no longer has to follow DOJ rules thanks to James Comey.
Even with the Justice Department tampering with the Hillary-Trump election, Hillary won 3 million more votes than Trump received. Had Comey not violated DOJ policy, Hillary almost certainly would have won the electoral college.
The chickens are coming home to roost – thank James Comey!
Anon: That was the only good thing James Comey ever did for the country. Hillary was (is) corrupt as is her husband Bill who at least was a likeable rake. She lacks any sort of charisma and simply has a sour I’m entitled way about her that turned off voters. As expected, she won overwhelmingly in renegade places like New York and California but those two states full of elitists and Marxists have little in common with the rest of the country. Anyone who believes Hillary would have made a good POTUS probably thinks Biden was a valedictorian at the debate last week. Delusionary behavior as panic sinks in and the inevitable is seen as, well, inevitable.
If Donald Trump never performs another public service in his life, keeping Her Majesty from assuming the office of President is enough. She has a pathological need for power – and no one who needs it that badly can ever be trusted with it.
Unfortunately, it seems that that pathology has been adopted by the entire media/war machine/china-fellating/western-replacement complex; aka the DNC.
+10000000000000000
I loathe that criminal
The DNC trolls continually show what a blithering idiot Hillary is. And we do appreciate that!!! However, a presidential candidate knows winning depends on the EC. That she, a “brilliant legal mind”, campaigned to win the popular vote instead of the EC, shows she is as mentally vacuous as Merrick Garland
That she won 3 million more votes than Trump but lost the EC is proof of how mismanaged her campaign was.
It’s been reported that the campaign believed they had the EC in the bag but worried Trump may win the so called “popular vote”. They feared that if Trump did win the “popular vote” he’d use that fact to try to delegitimize her election.
So Hillary’s campaign diverted resources to heavily Democrat areas to increase turnout and ramp up the “popular vote” count. It was effective. CA overperformed for her.
Contrast that with Trump, who had about half the resources Hillary had. Yet his campaign allocated its resources with the goal of winning the EC.
Thus disproving the entire campaign finance law change fear that the most money always wins
I don’t think Juanita Brodderick thinks Bill Clinton is a likable rake. Not even a likable rape, reportedly he bit her lip while forcibly raping her. I guess now perhaps that rape can be pursued in court. That was one good thing about Obama, the women were safe…
I am looking forward to this! You know Comey will squeal like a pig when they haul his sorry ass in.