Jack Smith Asks SCOTUS To Allow Trump's Election Interference Trial In Time To Interfere In Election

At least once a month I say "if you want to know what the Democrats are doing, just watch what they're accusing Republicans of." Here's a recent example just to kick things off: Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton: “Siding with Trump means siding with autocrats worldwide who cash in their power for personal gain.” https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1749509289998266699 -- Does Hillary Clinton realize she's Hillary Clinton? That's not unlike when Hillary accuses Trump of pushing disinformation even though she... well, you know what she's done. That kind of irony was on display yet again in headlines like this one from MSNBC about Special Counsel Jack Smith: In a new filing, Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to not delay Trump's election interference trial. -- “If we don’t fast-track Trump’s election interference trial we won’t have enough time to interfere in the election!”

Greg Price @greg_price11: “Jack Smith just filed a motion urging the Supreme Court to let Donald Trump's J6 trial proceed without further delay. He says that a delay would "frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict" and cause "serious harm to the government and the public" In what world does the public interest in a trial and "harm to the government" outweigh the rights of the accused?” https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1757907430703321476 -- Smith's interested in a "fair verdict"? Legit LOL on that one: In a 40-page response filed days before his deadline, Smith’s team on Wednesday urged the justices to reject Trump’s request and allow the trial to move ahead. “Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” prosecutors wrote. As usual, the Democrats are cheering efforts to "save democracy" by making sure that there's only one candidate on the ballot (they're also trying to keep RFK Jr. off state ballots).

Byron York @ByronYork: “Why does Jack Smith keep urging courts to speed up the Trump trial without mentioning that he, Smith, is racing to try, convict, and sentence Trump before the November 5 election? Smith's new filing says the public has a 'compelling interest' of 'unique national importance' in speedy trial, but leaves out fact that the defendant is the leading candidate for the presidency this November. Says there would be 'serious harm to the government -- and to the public -- of postponing the resolution of the criminal charges.' But why would that be? Says 'the public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former president is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office.' And 'in all criminal cases, delay can be 'fatal' to achieving just outcomes.' As time passes, 'witnesses may become unavailable or their memories may fade.' (Where was Smith during the E. Jean Carroll suit?) And this: 'There is a national interest in seeing the crimes alleged in this case resolved promptly.' The public has a 'compelling interest in a prompt disposition of the case.' But wait a minute! Could there be any other reason? Why can't Smith just say: There's an election November 5. The defendant is the leading candidate for president. We must decide this case before the vote. Yes, that would run afoul of Justice Department guidelines that say, '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...' But at least he would be telling the truth.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300627/20240214180323991_23A745_Trump%20v.%20United%20States_Gov.%20stay%20resp_FINAL.pdf

Sounds a lot like attempted election interference! When do the charges against Smith get filed? Also, Smith seems to think the Constitution was written for the government, not the citizens: BuzzFightYear @TheArchAngel555: “The defendant has a right to a speedy trial. Not the prosecution. Jack Smith is a power hungry thug. I hope SCOTUS smacks him down hard.” -- @amuse @amuse: “It occurs to me that the framers were worried about a defendants right to a speedy and fair trial. There isn't a right of the public to quickly prosecute defendants.” https://twitter.com/i/status/1757924381085290612 -- The public officials who think the Constitution applies to the government but not the citizens are some of the same people who want everybody to believe Trump is the "threat to democracy." It would be laughable if this wasn't so dangerous.

The Hill: Jack Smith urges Supreme Court to reject Trump’s bid to delay Jan. 6 trial
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4468789-trump-special-counsel-jack-smith-supreme-court-jan-6-trial/