The unfair trials of Donald Trump

 Daily Caller:

CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig slammed the Department of Justice (DOJ) for how it defended its decision to rush former President Donald Trump’s federal trial.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the federal case alleging Trump interfered in the 2020 election in Georgia, announced Monday that the trial would begin March 4, 2024, one day before Super Tuesday.

Criminal defense attorney Caroline Polisi said that while Trump’s defense team’s push for a 2026 trial may have been “a bit of a reach … lots of federal trials would give more time” for defendants to go through the millions of documents in question.

Honig agreed, arguing the DOJ is risking violating Trump’s constitutional rights with such a speedy date.

“I agree, judges have very wide discretion when it comes to setting trial dates,” Honig began. “I agree, this will be an issue that Donald Trump will appeal eventually, but it’s cutting it really close here, to make Donald Trump — in a case with 12 million pages of documents — go to trial in seven months. And some of the rationales that the DOJ had offered up that the judge agreed with, I think don’t cut it.” (RELATED: ‘I’ve Never Seen A Court Move This Fast’: Rep. Byron Donalds Lays Out Huge Accusation Against Judge On Trump Case)

“For example, one of the things DOJ argued and the judge agreed with is, ‘Well, he has sort of known this was a possibility for a year or so, going back to January 6 trials.’ That’s not the way it works in our system. You are not ‘on notice,’ as a criminal defendant, until an indictment drops. That’s the purpose of an indictment. You can’t just say, ‘You kind of should have known there was something floating out in the ether.’ That doesn’t cut it.”

...

The Biden DOJ is not interested in providing Trump with a fair trial.  Its main interest is election interference to make it easier for America's worst president, Joe Biden, to get reelected by criminalizing his chief opponent.  The fact that the Biden administration is even doing this is evidence of a rigged judicial system. They likely know that these cases will not survive an appeal in the case of a conviction, but that appeal would likely be heard after the election and the damage to democracy has been done.

See, also:

The left is 'willfully blind' to President Trump's rights

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more