Stop moving the Overton window. Trump Trials MUST Happen Regardless of Election Calendar

Every time a member of the media claims that “the court effectively immunized Donald Trump” or “No judge would hold a trial during an election,” they are doing a job in Trump’s defense. Not only are they both wrong on the facts, but they are extremely dangerous to democracy.

I will prove why they are factually incorrect.

1. “No judge would hold a trial during an election.”

Oh really?

Senator on trial: twenty-first day

Reporters covering the federal corruption trial of Bob Menendez at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse in Lower Manhattan struggled to return to New Jersey after power problems at Penn Station caused massive delays in the New Jersey Transit. That followed a day in which federal prosecutors gave jurors a precise timeline of his alleged bribe-taking, using text messages, photographs and Web searches. Jurors have another day off today and the trial will resume Monday.

Senator Menendez literally had a primary during his trial. He didn’t participate, but he could have. He is actually in office. There is no rule or precedent that says if a politician is indicted, election season is somehow a neutral zone where nothing can happen.

Why does a candidate for president, an equal branch of the national government, deserve special treatment? Spoiler alert: he doesn’t.

2. The court effectively immunized Donald Trump

The Supreme Court has so far done no such thing. And unless they granted a stay, they didn’t unless Judge Chutkan allowed politics to play a role in her judicial decision-making.

Chutkan will be able to immediately schedule a trial as soon as a Supreme Court ruling is issued, unless she is asked to determine what is or is not an official act. Let’s break them down.

SCOTUS says no immunity (unlikely)

If she is not asked to make a finding of fact, there is no precedent for why she should postpone her trial due to the election schedule. She stayed and would give participants seven months to prepare. Four months passed before immunity was used, so there are 3 months left. The trial could therefore begin at the end of September if SCOTUS issues a decision next week.

But it would be in the heat of the election, you say?

Trump did not have to appeal. He could have started the trial in March. He could have joined Jack Smith in asking the Supreme Court to take up the matter directly.

A full appeal process was his choice as defendant. More power to him. But he fails to dictate the schedule due to the delay.

There is a simple logical test that makes this question of timing seem absurd.

What if Donald Trump was indicted for rape or murder?

Would someone with a straight face say, “Well, there’s an election coming up, so we’re going to have to delay the matter until it’s over”? We know the answer is absolutely no. So why on earth would an insurrection/sedition case be held to different standards? I have already proven that a corruption case does not exceed the timetable of a trial, and this is clearly worse.

There is no valid or logical reason to let Trump’s occupation dictate the trial schedule. And when people claim that this is the case because the media is pearl-clutching, or the GOP is whispering in their ear, that moves the Overton Window and Democrats should object strongly to this , without promoting it by saying that SCOTUS delay is equivalent to vaccination. They create immunity out of fear and favor.

Investigation scenario

The investigation scenario is even simpler. Establishing the facts will require hearings, in whatever form Judge Chutkan deems appropriate. And Jack Smith has every right to call witnesses and present his case. And the judge has the right to compile a complete file.

If the Supreme Court rules that there is some immunity for Mr. Trump’s official acts, the dispute would most likely then return to Justice Tanya S. Chutkan to distinguish which actions alleged in the indictment are considered official and which as private.

To the extent that prosecutors and defense attorneys disagree about how to examine some of Mr. Trump’s behavior, such a proceeding could provide insight into parts of any potential trial, including testimony potential on his words and actions.

But Professor Buell said that if the judge ultimately ruled against Mr. Trump on one or more of those issues, he would likely not be able to appeal to the Supreme Court before trial. Courts generally treat disputes over the nature of evidence as matters that can be appealed after a guilty verdict, he said.

Oh you don’t believe me? Well, let me introduce you to Aileen Cannon, who is holding a five-day hearing on whether the special advocate law is legal, even though it has already been ruled on at least 3 times.

So, can you imagine how much evidence and testimony would be needed to determine what constitutes an official act or not?

In other words, Judge Chutkan or Jack Smith can essentially hold almost the entire trial due to instructions from the Supreme Court. Any witnesses they planned to call could be called here. And then they could just put those facts into the trial record whenever the trial happens.

Essentially, a directive to determine which acts are official would be an instruction to effectively start the trial, and Judge Chutkan would not be required to maintain her promise of 3 months preparation because these would be pre-trial actions and defense. trial. She would simply follow the advice given to her by a corrupt Supreme Court.

———

As a country, especially Democrats and the media, we need to stop treating Donald Trump as some kind of exceptional citizen. Every exception presented to us is actually not new if we take two seconds to think about the history and/or logic.

Stop moving the Overton Window with guesswork and start explaining the facts to America.