Constitutional expert: DOJ, courts weaponized to pursue 'a specific person'

 March 11, 2024

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Department of Justice long has had a policy of not pursuing cases involving political figures in the runup before the election.

Leftists in the Deep State called on that very practice when it appeared that special counsel John Durham may have been considering charges against individuals just before the 2020 vote.

But they're now trashing the idea, as they try to bring their multiple claims against President Donald Trump into courtrooms just before, even during the vote.

And it appears that both prosecutors and judges who have publicly expressed criticism of Trump are pursuing their agenda because the defendant is Trump.

He faces several different cases, from an organized crime charge in Georgia to claims he had classified material from his presidency to others in various jurisdictions across the nation.

A judge in one case, Tanya Chutkan, who previously publicly criticized Trump, said her "trial" "will not yield to the election cycle."

One prosecutor, Jack Smith, "declared that he will not consider himself bound by the Justice Department's longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of candidates close to an election."

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, said the claim by the DOJ and the leftist judges that the scheduling is the "result of treating Trump like other criminal defendants" is increasingly dubious.

That some issues in the Democrats' allegations against Trump first must be addressed by the Supreme Court creates "a nightmare scenario ... in which Trump could be tried not just before the general election, but actually through November’s election," Turley noted.

He noted that Chutkan was "pushing" for a March trial date for Trump, even though D.C. courts are "stacked" with thousands of cases, and a trial normally would be expected to extend over two years.

And he noted Smith has been trying to manipulate the system to "cut off standard appellate options for Trump. It seems as if the entire point is to try Trump before the election."

He said Smith claims it's important for voters to "consider" the outcome of the trial, but Turley pointed out, "It is a rare acknowledgment of a desire for a trial to become a factor in an election."

And he noted Chutkan is pursuing the same agenda, after suggesting publicly in other cases that "one person," Trump, should be charged criminally.

Chutkan refused to recuse herself even after expressing a public opinion.

Turley noted that he previously explained how the DOJ pre-election rule is ambiguous. But he said before Trump, leftists were enthusiastic in saying it would be unfair to put on a case in the weeks leading to a vote.

Turley noted, "A 2023 poll found that a 47 percent plurality of Americans already believe the charges are politically motivated. That appearance will only worsen as the election approaches, a recognition that should force a modicum of restraint upon both the court and the prosecution."

He noted, "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 to shoehorn them into the calendar this year if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant."

He said, "As the calendar continues to shrink, claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person."

Latest News

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts