— —
Many are furious about the Supreme Court obvious foot-dragging in their biased handling of Trump’s Presidential Immunity claims — myself included. The concerns stem from SCOTUS kicking the accountability can well past April, and likely into the “safety zone” of DOJ calendar — that period prior to the Election when the DOJ typically suspends prosecution of political candidates. Usually this “Time out zone” is considered to be 60-90 days before the Election, in which the defendant-candidate is slated to run.
Here are the relevant sections of the Justice Manual:
9-85.500 — Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election
9-27.260 — Initiating and Declining Charges — Impermissible Considerations
Well according to this well-reasoned argument, made on Lawfare.org, there are several valid reasons for not letting these political “considerations” to derail the criminal cases against Donald Trump — which have ALREADY BEEN INITIATED ...
The Special Counsel Is Right to Oppose Trump’s Delay Strategy
by Genevieve Nadeau, Kristy Parker
Lawfare — February 22, 2024
[...]
3. Neither the Special Counsel, nor the courts, are required to give Trump special treatment because he has chosen to run for office—their failure to do so is not evidence of improper motives.
[...]
Section 9-85.500 of the Justice Manual provides that, “Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” This regulation is routinely reiterated in election-year guidance issued by the Attorney General, as it was by Attorney General Garland in 2022 and in the manual on Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.
There is no evidence, however, to support the states’ suggestion that the Special Counsel’s push for expedited appellate review in this case is indicative of an improper attempt to sway the outcome of the presidential election in violation of these provisions.
These provisions necessarily apply to aspects of a criminal case that prosecutors can control. The Justice Manual and the so-called 60-day rule (the informal DOJ policy prohibiting overt investigative steps or indictments in politically sensitive cases within 60 to 90 days before an election) therefore apply primarily before cases are charged. Once cases are charged, because they proceed under court supervision (in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and constitutional considerations), the rules no longer apply in the same way (and the 60-day rule no longer applies at all).
Of course, prosecutors should never conduct themselves in a way that suggests they are motivated by partisan objectives, even if they are no longer in unilateral control of the case—but the analysis is different after indictment. Perhaps most importantly, once a case has been charged and pre-trial proceedings are underway (which in Trump’s case happened nearly 6 months before the first primary, and well over a year before the general election), prosecutors should not be required to slow down or otherwise agree to accommodate the defendant’s desire to run for office or engage in any other activity that might render trial proceedings inconvenient. [...] In other words, Trump is not entitled to any form of special treatment because he chose to run for office. Rather, under the circumstances, the politically neutral thing for both prosecutors and the courts to do now is let the case continue in the “normal” course.
[...]
So let’s summarize the argument against the “traditional” Election “Time out” period:
A) Just because defendant-candidate “has chosen to run for office” he is not entitled to “special treatment.”
B) “Once cases are charged … the rules no longer apply in the same way (and the 60-day rule no longer applies at all).”
C) “the informal DOJ policy prohibit[s] overt investigative steps or indictments” … “within 60 to 90 days before an election.”
If I’m not mistaken, Trump has already been indicted (91 times, as I recall). And presumably the investigative steps have already been completed too: evidence has been gathered, and charges have already been filed. Have they not?
IOW, these cases against Trump are ALREADY in process. And the “Time out” rule applies to “initiating NEW charges” against a candidate, for political purposes.
This situation clearly does not apply to Donald Trump. If anything, the “political games” being played with the Court Calendar, have all been by the defendant-candidate, and now apparently by the foot-dragging Supreme Court too. (Remember that Special Counsel Smith asked the Supreme Court to take up this absurd Immunity case months ago — knowing time was of the essence — and the SCOTUS refused to do so, THEN. Surprise, surprise.)
—
SO it is incumbent on us, as politically concerned citizens, to make these arguments AGAINST the 90 day rule known, far and wide. And to apply enough political pressure on AG Garland, so that he not fall for the inevitable MAGA demands to call an unwarranted — and undeserved — “Time out” (AKA “special treatment”) for the 91-time-indicted defendant-candidate.
This Authoritarian Candidate — who has vowed revenge and a dismantling of the Constitution — deserves no such “special considerations” which would allow him to evade accountability — and THEN to carry out his dictatorial plans, on Day-one. As he has vowed.
AG Garland must not let this happen. Enough of playing nice. It’s long passed time for take off the Do-gooder gloves — and to quit empowering this career criminal with limitless benefits of the doubt.
It’s time to play hardball — if we the people, the concern-citizens of America, truly value our fragile system of government. Because our unique form of democracy is indeed at stake.
—
End of rant. But not the end of our anger — at Justice-delayed in all legal matters involving repeat-defendant Donald J Trump.
— —