Below is my column in The Hill on the release of the filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before the election. Even Judge Tanya Chutkan described the move as “irregular,” but still ordered the release. While the usual voices heralded the move, others, including the CNN senior legal analyst, denounced the release as a raw political act by the court and the Special Counsel. The problem is that it was not in the least bit surprising.
Here is the column:
“The most stupendous and atrocious fraud.” Those words from federal prosecutors could have been ripped from the filing this week of Special Counsel Jack Smith defending his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Yet they were actually from a Justice Department filing 184 years ago, just days from the 1840 presidential election. Democratic President Martin Van Buren was struggling for reelection against Whig William Henry Harrison, and his Justice Department waited until just before voters went to the polls to allege that Whig Party officials had paid Pennsylvanians to travel to New York to vote for Whig candidates two years earlier.
It was considered by many to be the first “October Surprise,” the last-minute pre-election scandal or major event intended to sway voters.
To avoid such allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Jack Smith, however, has long dismissed such considerations. For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial.
Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.
After the Supreme Court rendered parts of his indictment against Trump presumptively unconstitutional, Smith made clear that he was prepared to prosecute Trump up to the very day of his inauguration.
True to his reputation and record, Smith refused to drop the main allegations against Trump to avoid official decisions or acts that the court found to be protected in Trump v. United States. Instead, he stripped out some prior evidence linked to Trump’s presidency, including witnesses serving in the White House. Yet the same underlying allegations remain. Smith just repeatedly uses references to Trump as acting as “a private citizen.”
It is like a customer complaining that he did not order a Coke and the waiter pouring it into a Mountain Dew bottle and saying, “Done!”
Smith even refused to drop the obstruction of official proceedings, despite another recent Supreme Court decision (Fischer v. United States) rendering that charge presumptively invalid.
Smith is making his case not to Judge Tanya Chutkan, but to America’s voters. Chutkan has consistently ruled with Smith to help him expedite the case. She permitted his hastened “rocket docket” despite declaring that she would not consider the election schedule as a factor in the pace of filings or even of the trial itself.
For critics, Judge Chutkan has proven far too motivated in the case. Indeed, many thought that she should have recused herself given her statement from a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022. Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith.
In their latest move, Chutkan and Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense — an excuse to lay out the allegations against Trump in a 165-page filing filled with damaging accounts and testimonials against Trump, just weeks ahead of the election.
Even Chutkin herself acknowledged that Smith’s request was “procedurally irregular,” but she still allowed it. This was a premature exercise that would ordinarily occur months later, after defense filings. She could have scheduled such filings just a few weeks from now. She could have easily kept the filing under seal to avoid the appearance of political machinations. But the political effect appears to be the point. Chutkin again selected the most politically impactful option, at Smith’s urging.
This was so “irregular” that ordinarily anti-Trump legal analysts, such as CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig, denounced Smith’s filing as “an unprincipled, norm-breaking practice.” He added that “Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects.”
Others, as expected, applauded the filing as not just well-directed but well-timed. Smith was making his closing election argument to voters because he knows that the 2024 election will be the largest jury verdict in history.
If voters reelect Trump, then neither Chutkin nor Smith will likely see a jury in the case. This is why they must convict Trump now in the public eye, or else admit to an effective acquittal by plebiscite.
Their timing could well backfire. The weaponization of the legal system is central to this election, including the role of the Justice Department in pushing the debunked Russia-collusion allegations from the 2016 race. For many, the content of Smith’s filing is not nearly as important as the time stamp over the case caption. Titled a “Motion for Immunity Determination,” it seems more like a “Motion for an Election Determination.”
Smith’s raw political calculation should be troubling for anyone who values the rule of law. None of this excuses anything in these allegations against Trump. But the most disturbing part of Smith’s October Surprise was that it was not in the least bit surprising.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
While the usual voices heralded the move, others, including the CNN senior legal analyst, denounced the release as a raw political act by the court and the Special Counsel.
Professor Turley, were you thinking of your close, dear friend Dennis McIntyre when you mentioned “the usual voices” applauding Jack Smith attempting to repeat what he did for the previous Democrat president in 2012 – taking out the political opponent most likely to defeat him in the election?
Dennis is going to be really, REALLY mad at you for stating the obvious about his favorite police state fascist, Jack Smith. Might even threaten to end your friendship.
You’re a few days late and a few dollars short regarding writing about this. CNN’s legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig pointed out the obvious four days ago.
Perhaps you could have followed up on his earlier observations by explaining why Jack Smith wasn’t disbarred after SCOTUS in 2016 unanimously threw out his previous conviction through police state fascism and took the extraordinary step of calling him “a threat to our separation of powers”.
Or at least explain to everyone why Jack Smith’s record of legal malfeasance and close ties to Biden’s Attorney General’s office still allows him to be considered as qualified to be a Special Counsel despite being a modern Lavarentiy Beria serving his version of Lenin.
Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jack-smith-october-surprise-donald-trump.html#comments
The headline is that Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis.
* it’s election interference and worse…
OT: freedom of speech and press is for the exchange of ideas. It also exposes abuses and crimes and with redresses.
Who are the losers if the exchange of ideas is limited? The great mass of people.
Donald Trump attempted to remain in power even though he was not elected. Trumptards love this perversion of democracy.
Commie Democrats like Obama and Biden prefer to write and use “Russia Dossiers” to get elected. These commies and their commie cult members call having STASI fix elections for them “democracy”. When the victim doesn’t meekly accept the results, their outrage has no bounds.
And you know that how? Don tell you? Share a crackpipe with hunter? Or just plain old TDS kicking in again?
* Win or lose the ballots needed verification other than the Secretaries of States saying the ballots had been counted. Trump asked one Georgia county for verification of ballots. He was looking to find 14 thousand false ballots for Biden. They refused to provide the ballots for inspection. They then began destroying ballots. Approx 14 thousand ballots were destroyed before Georgia’s sec of state said stop. Why? Why cheat? Because people had not been allowed to vote a long time ago.
Meanwhile the victims of Helene are given $750.00 while illegals get thousands, flights, hotel rooms, driver licenses, demand for special food, with FEMA dollars and the border incursion continues.
Meanwhile you’re still a moron. The $750 is an initial on-the-spot payment to buy immediate essentials. It’s not the payment people ultimately get.
Meanwhile, you’re still a moron. A moron once again attempting to deflect from Mayorkas just a few months ago bragging FEMA was funded and ready for whatever hurricane season brings. Now, at the beginning of hurricane season, he pleads FEMA poverty but never a shortage of taxpayer dollars for Illegal Aliens, the last hope of the commie Democrats.
Same morons shilling for Mayorkas and Border Czar Harris when Mayorkas was saying “the border is secure”.
The Border Is Secure = FEMA Is Ready.
Release Date: April 12, 2024
Department of Homeland Security Announces $300 Million in Direct Funding to Communities Receiving Migrants and $340 Million for A New Competitive Awards Process
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), announced $300 million in grants through the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), which was authorized by Congress to support communities that are providing services to migrants… Last year, through FEMA more than $780 million was awarded through SSP and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program – Humanitarian Awards (EFSP-H) funding in Fiscal Year 2023.
How stupid.
Couldn’t address the point huh? Loser.
Turley’s presentation of the facts is incomplete, as he fails to acknowledge that Trump successfully postponed the trial multiple times, with a helping hand from the Supreme Court. While it is unusual to hold proceedings so close to an election, it is not illegal. Additionally, the policy that Turley cites is not mandatory, but rather advisory. Judge Chutkan had already indicated prior to her recent ruling that she would treat this case like any other and would not grant Trump special treatment just because he is running for office. It’s important to note that Trump is no longer the president, and Judge Chutkan has emphasized that she will not show him preferential treatment.
Smith’s new argument is crucial in light of the recent immunity ruling by the supreme court. The alleged crimes committed by Trump are said to have occurred while he was a candidate, not as president. The motion provides in-depth explanations as to why immunity should not apply to Trump when he was acting as a candidate. Further details will be unveiled during the trial. It’s important to note that if these actions are found to be beyond the scope of presidential immunity, they can still be used against Trump even if he wins, as immunity does not cover private actions that are unrelated to official presidential duties.
The shenanigans have grown over the years. Without personal penalties, they will continue no matter what law is passed. They exist to this extent because the bureaucracy feeds itself and grows. A smaller bureaucracy prevents the misuse of human capital.
I’m neither an economist nor a lawyer, but my political instincts tell me this decision will have as little effect on the election as The Fed lowering its rate by a half-point six weeks before voters cast their ballots.
so when does the GOP kick out the RINOs and start jailing all the criminal Democrats
we can’t continue with a COMPLETELY lawless democrat Party. It should be abolished. 2 Civil Wars…is TWO TOO MANY!
Special Counsel Jack Smith has proved himself to be a great disappointment to all Democrats. We counted on him to get the job done and he failed us.
lets keep in mind that Smith has a very bad record of convictions – always lost on appeal.
This and Elie Honig’s article prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garland, Smith and Chutkan are engaged in election interference. The evidence is:
1. Deciding not to consider Smith’s authority before anything else;
2. Allowing the prosecution to file this motion before the defense has filed a motion challenging the indictment;
3. Allowing the prosecution to file this motion before the election;
4. Extending the number of pages allowed for a motion by 4X;
5. Not keeping the motion under seal; and
6. Including in the indictment counts that Fischer might preclude.
If Trump wins, this all will be moot since a Trump DOJ will end the prosecutions; and perhaps Garland, Smith and Chutkan will be charged under some criminal statute, though I doubt it. If Harris wins, she also may stop the prosecutions in the interest of unity (or to avoid embarrassing losses in court); if she doesn’t they will drag on through the courts until ultimately Trump is vindicated or convicted, years from now.
The weaponisation of the DOJ/FBI is a very unfortunate legacy of the Biden/Harris administration. Among other things, it forced the Supreme Court to decide about presidential immunity, which ought never have been brought before it, especially on such attenuated charges. It’s not clear if this Rubicon can be uncrossed.
Take it a step further. Ask yourself if it is rational for Chutkan and Smith to do what they are doing if Trump has even a tiny chance of winning. If Trump wins, then Rs will hold the House and likely take the Senate. In which case Chutkan knows she is setting herself up for impeachment proceedings. She will be dragged before the House and Senate for months. While left wing trash will donate money for her legal defense, the process and hearings will disrupt her life and career. Likewise, Smith surely knows he will be the subject of perpetual public and private investigations until something, anything, is found to push for revocation of his law license to destroy his life and career.
That’s the kind of partisan lawfare Demorats have pioneered. Chutkan and Smith are not stupid. They know those tactics will be used against them IF Trump wins. They will become the hunted. They will be targeted with the exact same partisan lawfare Democrats have spent years perfecting against Trump and anyone and everyone in his orbit.
So if the election were truly a toss up as all the polls suggest, then why would they be doing this? It’s not rational. It is rational, however, if the election outcome is pre-determined. That would explain not only on the surface what appears to be their irrational conduct, but also why Harris is holding so few public and media events and barely going thru the motions of a campaign.
If, however, the election is pre-determined so Trump is guaranteed to lose, then their behavior is far more rational.
Lucid, laconic. Well said.
Excellent post summarizing Smith’s latest appearance as Democrat president’s Lavarentiy Beria. One correction: the weaponization of the DOJ/FBI (and Jack Smith) didn’t begin with Biden/Harris.
It is a continuation of Obama/Biden deploying Jack Smith as their Lavarentiy Beria to take out their most feared potential opponent to reelection back in 2012 – Governor Bob McDonnell. And at the same time, Jack Smith was the Obama/Biden DoJ “ethics lawyer” who told Louis Lerner of the IRS that she could shut down all GOP election campaign non-profit groups for “investigation” for the duration of the election.
Americans are being told not to believe their lying eyes when those eyes tell them Jack Smith and his masters are the American version of the old USSR.
The only new information in Smith’s filing was suggestive evidence that Trump knew he had lost the election prior to J6th. These are based on deposition testimony, recollections of comments made by the ex-President. One was to WH insiders along the lines of “Whether we won or lost, we’re still going to fight”.
The other was in a convo with VP Pence, when Pence politely told the President to “forget it” about the “Pence plan” for declaring Trump the victor at the Joint Session on J6th, to which Trump exclaims “You’re too honest”.
That last quote deserves to go down in history as a summary of the amoral expediency which permeates the national politics of our era. Yes, Trump didn’t start the slide downward into mendacities, evasive sloganeering and other forms of deceptive infowarfare. He rather failed to arrest it with truth warfare, trustworthiness and candid authenticity, succumbing to the cynical idea that the ends justify the means. It doesn’t, and it leaves fewer paths back to reconciliation and national cohesion.
We already knew Trump is a moral solipsist (right is that which is in his interest and to his opposition’s disadvantage, and wrong is anything that thwarts him or boosts his perceived adversary). The quotes attributed to Trump therefore ring true and tell us nothing new. Trump sees his Democratic opponents as lawbreakers and denizens of an ethical sewer, and that justifies fighting back by “any means necessary” — meaning Trump puts political competition above the law and above the Constitution.
The risks and benefits of returning him to executive power are generally understood. If he’s re-elected, it will spur the militant left toward further militancy, extra-Constitutional gaming, and outright lawbreaking.
So, there’s nothing noteworthy in Smith’s latest filing. It doesn’t change anything.
I would hesitate to take at face value any statements plucked by Smith to make his points prior to cross-examination and the presentation by the defense of its evidence and witnesses.
* ” whether we won or lost we’ll fight ” means we’ll verify as lawful the votes cast . That will prove I’ve lost or prove I’ve won.
It’s Wittgenstein. Say exactly what is meant. Example: How are feeling today? Reply, I feel like a dog hit by a truck. Response, you couldn’t possibly know that because you’ve never been a dog nor have you ever been hit by a truck.
Pbinca, knowing all the false statements that were reported, why would you quote Trump as saying to Pence, “You’re too honest?” If you can find proof, Trump said it would be acceptable, but you won’t. Should you now be convicted of spreading false information?
This statement is one of many you and others copy from those pushing disinformation. I know you are concerned about disinformation, so we should all recognize that quotation marks are used when there is evidence.
“That last quote deserves to go down in history as a summary of the amoral expediency which permeates the national politics of our era.”
You expand the discussion by including a quote that probably does not exist and creates more disinformation. In many of your past responses, you have accused others of this. If you want disinformation to stop, start at home.
If he’s re-elected, it will spur the militant left toward further militancy, extra-Constitutional gaming, and outright lawbreaking.
Ah, the pathetic sophistry of pbinca… once again he tells us, Trump is the cause of pbinca’s Democrats’ political violence (he prefers to call it “militancy”, just like Democrats call Hamas terrorists “militants”).
Trump is the cause of Democrats extra-Constitutional gaming – during the 2012 election campaign he made Obama/Biden send Jack Smith to take out their most feared opponent and shut down GOP election campaign groups. FOUR YEARS BEFORE ENTERING POLITICS.
And the outright lawbreaking? Yeah he MADE them illegally commission and write the ‘Russia Dossier’ and then “leak the evidence” to voters before the election. Trump FORCED Obama/Biden to send their last two Attorney Generals, FBI Director, and others to perjure themselves to FISA courts to get illegal spy warrants to violate the civil rights of Trump and everyone remotely close to him.
pbinca does a great job of attempting a backhanded endorsement of electing Harris as the only way to prevent Trump pushing the Democrats even further into being the American version of the USSR.
pbinca is a loathsome Cheap Fake American.
If you are so concerned about free speech then you should not support Trump because he is against the free expression of flag burning.
Bless your heart…..
Being against the burning of the American flag, is not being against free speech, but a matter of good character.
I think we all agree that burning the American flag is legal, so long is that the flag is yours and doesn’t endanger anyone else.
Do you burn your American flag in public?
Trump doesn’t agree.
Jonathan — it is stunning that you observe a prosecutor and judge who repeatedly have, with great glee , ripped the blindfold off the image of Justice in America. They are indisputably going all out to prevent a fair election — and no one does anything about it. Opt to flagrantly abuse our courts and legal system with show trials to steal an election? No problem: hopefully hopefully hopefully voters won’t be swayed .
We keep telling ourselves we are not Cuba or Venezuela; there is no need to worry about an attack on our democracy by rogue government officials who are paid by all of us, but clearly work just for the Democratic Party.
Elon Musk has recently posted that with the arrival of 20 million recent illegals a Harris win will bring about fast tracks to citizenship for a game- hanging number of these invaders. At least, if Harris wins, the US can take pride that in its last 2-party election it elevated a woman of color and that hopefully voters weren’t swayed by Chutkan and Smith (nor by Merchan and Bragg, nor Engoron and James in the two NY show trials against Trump). Are now just a court system of the Democratic Party for the Democratic Party by the Democratic Party?
And isn’t it interesting that Steve Bannon is imprisoned for a misdemeanor thanks to our rabidly partisan court system that couldn’t abide him participating in the campaign? Merrick Garland ignores subpoenas, as did Eric Holder and Lois Lerner and nothing happened.; please change all the pictures of Justice to show no blindfold and a Democratic thumb on the scales.
The Dems plan to pack SCOTUS with Dem operatives, so together with all the illegals-turned-citizens, we will see the Californiazation of the GOP into a powerless party.
They are indisputably going all out to prevent a fair election — and no one does anything about it.
You are welcome to take matter into your own hands as you breathlessly complain, like all conservatives, that “no one does anything about it”. So get to it! Jump in your car, airplane, on your mule, and keep everyone posted. Times a wasting. Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way, already. Yawn. As if conservatives were actual leaders. Behold the US House of Represenatitives, which has accomplished absolutely nothing in their 2 years of dilly dallying. Nancy Pelosi – true leader. An evil one at that, but a leader nonetheless who can whip her caucus to jump over barrels at the circus. Republicans who have been Speaker of the House since Newt Gingrich: no cojones. Place them all on gender affirming hormones but that probably won’t even work
We keep telling ourselves we are not Cuba or Venezuela
Because you’re slothful, proud and complacent. This Cuban and many many immigrants including some from Mao Zedong’s “paradise” have been telling Americans that America is next. How did that work out for you?
Elon Musk has recently posted that with the arrival of 20 million recent illegals a Harris win will bring about fast tracks to citizenship for a game- hanging number of these invaders.
More breatheless paranoia and frankly its embarassing to observe. Immigrants from Latin America, many of whom I have treated in clinic as recent arrivals for years, are against abortion, against Trans/ gender theory, are deeply religious, do not trust the government. It’s up to Republicans to show them they are their choice, but as usual, Republicans are doing nothing to articulate their policies, only stoking fears and scorn about immigrants. Republians have sh/t for brains. They could own those immigrants by speaking their cultural issues instead of demonizing them.
Pro-tip: volunteer at a clinic, school, or local church that provides support for immigrants who are recent arrivals. You will find they are far more religious than Americans as a whole, but especially so called conservatives, e.g. Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorite Taylor Greene, et al
“as you breathlessly complain, like all conservatives, that “no one does anything about it”
Estovir, it is nice to know that conservatives are the problem. Attacking those who believe in the things you wish to protect is not the proper way to attack the problem. All you are doing is destroying the concept of a big tent. When the voting is completed, the side with the biggest tent wins.
“as you breathlessly complain, like all conservatives”
I understand your inference and agree. That brings the question forward. What are you doing to make a difference? Are you making the tent smaller?
* ” no cojones” ? Does this mean people are acting like girls?
The reference to genitals escapes me. Perhaps a reference to castration?
Estovir: You are welcome to take matter into your own hands as you breathlessly complain, like all conservatives, that “no one does anything about it”. So get to it! Jump in your car, airplane, on your mule, and keep everyone posted… Because you’re slothful, proud and complacent.
Estovir, as you have the ability to know he does nothing other than post here breathlessly complaining and doing exactly nothing else.
Any problem with us equally having the ability to know you also do nothing other than post here breathlessly complaining while doing nothing else – exactly like he does?
Or different set of rules for you.
How does Republicans volunteering at a clinic force DOJ to do their jobs when Team Red brings charges to them?
How does Republicans volunteering at a clinic force DOJ to do their jobs when Team Red brings charges to them?
welll, it getting one’s hands dirty as in “smelling like the sheep”, is a very Christo-centric truism, and hence educates the person to reality. True, today none of that really helps reason, logic nor opinions since Christo-centric thinking is, um, anathema.
so yea, “off with their heads” seems to be the more popular knee-jerk reaction ala Matt Gaetz, as he porks underage girls between snorts of cocaine. Ah, to be a conservative.
/s
Pro tip JAFO: Rome wasn’t built in a day. It took centuries/millenia to form the hearts & minds of the US Founding Fathers. Get busy
The % of voters that would decide based on this latest filing has got to be near 0. More than likely this was to make sure they don’t change their minds. Perhaps even more grotesque is the Regime will use this as a way to explain the unprecedented (illegal) voter turnout.
Eating dogs should be handleded the same way as flag burning. If it is their property, well….
What about eating the park animals owned by the government. Or burning flags that are owned by the government.
Handled equally? How?
“It seems to have generated almost nothing so lets move on to the important stuff like the next upset in the SEC.”
And right you are! Don’t forget the other big question Americans are grappling with today. Will Taylor show up at the game tonight, or not? Now, THAT is something Americans are hanging on the edge of their seats to know.
Maybe Merritt Garland and the Justice Department are not objecting to Smith’s ignoring of Justice Department guidelines because he (Garland) understands that Smith’s appointment is not valid and will eventually be ruled unconstitutional in D.C. as it has been in the Florida trial. If Smith’s appointment is knowingly invalid he would technically not need to follow Justice Department rules. This “trial” increasingly does not appear to be about striving for a sustainable conviction in a court of law as it appears to be clearly designed to hurt Trump politically and personally. If Smith’s appointment is invalid (because there was no authorization by Congress) wouldn’t Smith not be covered by qualified immunity of government officials (because he was acting extra-legally) and be personally liable for monetary damages incurred by Trump?
When people deny the existence of lawfare, I question their intellect and sanity, because I know they are bereft of honesty.
I still don’t understand how Smith can act as a Special Counsel given the ruling by J. Cannon. Did she stay her ruling pending appeal? I must have missed something along the line.
The ruling by Cannon goes against precedent and rulings by SCOTUS.
The
ruling by Cannonfiling by Smith goes against precedent andrulings by SCOTUS.the rules of the DOJI am a historian, not a lawyer, so I cannot comment on the procedural validity of what Smith and Chutkan have done. Even so, it is obvious to me that the prosecution’s 165-page document is at best one-sided. It is designed to convict, not to present an impartial assessment of all the available evidence. To be balanced, it must be tested against arguments and evidence from the defense. To have validity, it must be assessed by an impartial judge.
By allowing Smith’s arguments to be published, Chutkan has effectively taken sides with the prosecution, something that was perhaps predictable but is nonetheless reprehensible because she has short-circuited normal procedures and enabled a biased media to conduct a trial by partisan journalists in appears to be an effort to influence the judgment of voters, who theoretically would be the impartial judge of the prosecution’s case and the defense’s counter-arguments since Chutkan herself has more than once shown herself to believe that Trump is guilty of the charges brought by Smith.
The actions of the prosecution and the judge hearing the case remind me of the show trials in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia during the 1930s and 1940s, the trials of IWW members in the early 1900s and anti-war activists in Chicago during the 1960s.
For the American legal system, this is definitely not its finest moment, whatever ‘threat to democracy’ Trump might pose in the imaginations of those who have used the law to undermine the political system.
Well the object is Trump so no rules apply either to the judge, the prosecutor, or the good order of the court. These people may have noted that each time they do this Trump seems to grow stronger. The people believe that this is all lawfare, even some Trump opponents so is this really truth seeking or just an attempt to provide more fodder for Kamala’s ads. And each time it is said this is not DOJ procedure but they then go ahead and do it anyway, it’s beating your head against an imovable object. “This time we’ll get the results we want”, right. It seems to have generated almost nothing so lets move on to the important stuff like the next upset in the SEC. Now that will get people hot. Now the cry in Alabama is that Nick Saban never lost to Vandy. Oh the horror of it all.
GEB,
Well said.
We all see the lawfare Democrats are using. We all see Democrats calling for censorship. We all see Democrats conducting election interference. The only thing Democrats got right is in this election democracy is on the line. Just not in the way they think or say.