Well, my fellow Americans, it's up to us to hold Donald Trump accountable at the ballot box. We cannot rely on the courts before Election Day.
This was supposed to be the opening week of Trump's trial on January 6, the first ever trial of a former president facing criminal charges over his unprecedented attempt to overturn the US election and remain in power. The ruling could have been issued long before November.
Opinion columnist
Jackie Calmes
Jackie Calmes takes a critical look at the national political landscape. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.
But there is no trial today in Washington, thanks to the Republican-majority Supreme Court, a third of which was appointed by Trump. The court's decision last week to spend months considering Trump's false claim of absolute immunity from criminal charges will likely delay the January 6 trial for so long that a verdict before November 5 will be nearly impossible.
Critics who suggest otherwise downplay Trump's knack for forcing delays and the willingness of some judges to accommodate him.
Obviously, whether there is a ruling before the election matters. Polls consistently show that a significant number of voters would reject the presumptive Republican presidential nominee if he were a convicted felon, enough of them to tip the election in President Biden's favor. (Remember, Trump has already been convicted of financial fraud, sexual assault, and defamation in civil courts.)
Only the least high-profile of the four criminal trials Trump faces appears likely to begin any time soon. The New York state case, which alleges he falsified business records to cover up payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, is scheduled for trial on March 25.
Meanwhile, an election tampering case in Georgia looms as a judge considers whether or not Fulton County is a county. Atty. Fanny Willis can continue her experiment amid questions raised by the Trump side about her behavior.
Most of us have long ago given up hope that junior federal judge Eileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, would do anything other than what she did: indulge in stonewalling tactics in the Mar-a-Lago case, in which he is accused of taking power. Secret documents, lying about them, and obstruction of justice.
But the issue of January 6 is – and was – the most important in the previous elections. Americans deserve to see whether a jury will convict Trump of conspiring to subvert the 2020 election before voting to return him to office in 2024.
The adage “justice delayed is justice denied” has rarely been so apt. In this case, the wrong will be done to us, the voters.
We can spread the blame around. Atty. General Merrick Garland was so busy erasing the taint of politicization left by the Trump cabal at the Justice Department (a thankless task, as Republican baseless chatter about “weaponizing” it attests) that he took his time before appointing Special Counsel Jack Smith to take over. . Investigating Trump. Willis has indeed shown poor judgement. Cannon appears to be auditioning for a promotion to the Supreme Court by re-elected Trump.
Smith, at least, moved nimbly, along with the federal judge in the January 6 case, Tanya Chutkan. But the Supreme Court thwarted their efforts.
The justices could and should have considered Trump's immunity claim in December. That month, Chutkan rejected Trump's argument for what she called a “get-out-of-jail-free pass for life,” and when Trump appealed, Smith urged the Supreme Court to eliminate the mediator — the D.C. Court of Appeals — and quickly decide the landmark question. I refused.
Then, after an appeals court panel ruled unanimously against Trump, the justices could and should have accepted her widely acclaimed opinion as the final word. They didn't.
Worse still, in a case that has become more important to the outcome of a presidential election than any other since Bush v. Gore, one of the Supreme Court's members, Clarence Thomas, has a clear conflict of interest and is refusing to recuse himself. Thomas' wife has been implicated in pro-Trump machinations to overturn Biden's victory.
It is possible that a ruling will be issued by the judges as late as the end of June. They are not expected to support Trump's immunity claim, but they could send the case back to the appeals court, further delaying the trial. Former conservative appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig told MSNBC that a ruling on Trump's bid to retain power is now “much less likely” before the election.
For this reason, the judgment of voters becomes more important. As Liz Cheney often says, Trump should not be allowed “anywhere near the Oval Office again.” If re-elected, he could dismiss the federal cases against him, and he has pledged to pardon those already convicted for their actions on January 6.
Democrats “should make some chicken salad out of this chicken,” Dan Pfeiffer, a former White House adviser to Obama, told readers of his newsletter Thursday. He said he was critical of the already unpopular Supreme Court, confirming the argument that “Donald Trump is running for president for one reason and one reason only — to avoid accountability for the crimes he committed.”
We should stop looking at calendars and counting on our fingers when Trump might be convicted in a courtroom. We are the jury we have been waiting for.
Then, once Trump is defeated again, the trials could continue. Other juries can finish the job of holding Citizen Trump accountable.
@jackiekcalmes
