Jack Smith just got the one go-ahead which is devastating news for Donald Trump

Photo by Trump White House Archive, Public Domain, via Flickr

Jack Smith is racing against the clock to jail Donald Trump before the election.

But there are obstacles in his path.

And Jack Smith just got the one go-ahead which is devastating news for Donald Trump.

An Ipsos poll found just 20 percent of Americans would vote for Donald Trump if one of the juries in the rigged show trials Democrats plan to stage would convict him on any of the politically motivated charges he faces.

58 percent would vote against Trump.

With President Joe Biden trailing Trump, those poll numbers about Trump’s support cratering in the face of a criminal conviction only heightened the urgency for Smith to convict him in the 2020 Election case, which is tentatively scheduled for March 4.

That case is tied up in appeals and due to the Supreme Court hearing a separate case on the two of the charges Smith brought against the former President, the trial may not start until July or August at the earliest.

CNN’s Evan Perez asked Attorney General Merrick Garland – who handpicked the rogue Smith to lead the Trump witch hunts knowing he would aggressively bend the meaning of the law to invent criminal activity on Trump’s part where none existed – about the perception among many Americans that the charges against Trump were politically motivated.

Garland played lip service to being concerned – critics contend this is what he intended all along – and then got to the meat of the matter.

The Attorney General said he agreed with Smith’s unconstitutional assertion that the right to a speedy trial rests with the government.

“Okay. Of course, that concerns me. What we have to do is show by the acts that we take that we’re following the law, that we’re following the facts. The prosecutions that you’re talking about were brought last year. And the special prosecutor has said from the beginning, that he thinks public interest requires a speedy trial, which I agree with,” Garland began.

Perez pressed Garland on the timing of indicting Trump in the middle of the election and wondered if a delay in the trial due to appeals meant the trial couldn’t start before the voting due to the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not taking actions that would directly interfere in an election – such as handing down an indictment 90 days before an election or having a jury reach a verdict in the weeks before a vote.

Garland made it clear to Smith and Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan that he wouldn’t interfere if they started the trial in August or September meaning the jury could reach a verdict the week before election day.

“I do, and, the matter is now in the hands of, a trial judge to determine when the high trials will take place,” Garland began.

“The cases were brought last year. The prosecutor has urged speedy trials, with which I agree. And it’s now in the hands of the judicial system, not in our hands,” Garland added.

Garland’s comments were about as close as possible to an admission on the part of the Attorney General that he expects Smith and Chutkan to plow ahead with this trial because Democrats are counting on a conviction as their strategy for victory in November.

You may also like...