Regardless of whether one believes the multitude of charges against former President Donald Trump are purely political or legally justifiable, the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of candidates close to an election has gone to hell in a handbasket.
In October 2023, Tanya Chutkan, the federal judge presiding over Trump's 2020 presidential election interference case, declared: “This trial will not yield to the election cycle.”
And on March 5, 2024, Special Counsel Jack Smith declared that he would not consider himself bound by the Justice Department’s longstanding policy, saying it doesn't apply. Why not? I think we know the answer.
Legal scholar, writer, and political commentator Jonathan Turley weighed in on the unprecedented issue in a Monday column. (Emphasis, mine)
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.
And what about Jack Smith, according to Turley?
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 acknowledgment of a desire for a trial to become a factor in an election.
"Judge Chutkan has shown the same determination," wrote Turley.
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.”
So why the rush? Again, I think we already know the answer.
And the answer is this: This is the worst abuse at the highest level of the two-tier justice system imposed by liberal prosecutors and judges in modern U.S. history. Imagine, for a nanosecond, how both Chutkan and Smith would act if this were Joe Biden instead of Donald Trump. Would they be in such a rush to try Biden before the November election? Hell no, they wouldn't — and don't even get me started on Hunter Biden.
Here's more from Turley:
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.
Clear as can be, yet only the willfully blind avoid the truth about what's going on here — with both Chutkan and Jack Smith. Speaking of Smith, Turley wrote:
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 then added “Second, the rule does not apply! For anyone who has been at the Justice Department, this is such a red herring.”
Unbelievable — yet not in the least.
It all comes down to the following, as Turley wrote.
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.
Is there any doubt about what's going on here?
The Bottom Line
While the words and actions of Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith aren't likely criminal, they blatantly demonstrate the two-tiered justice system ominously plaguing America.
With the "good guys" on the short end of the stick, I shudder to think about what's coming if crooked-as-hell Joe Biden wins re-election.
RELATED:
Grassley: 'Significant Political Bias Infecting' DOJ, FBI—Multiple Biden Investigations Shut Down
Trump Trials, Election Interference, and Democrats' Severe Miscalculation
