• Starbuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Because the hush money case is the only case that is likely to happen before the election.

    The J6 case in DC got screwed by the Supreme Court refusing to take the appeal before waiting for the DC appeals court to rule. It was obvious that the Supreme Court was going to step in and rule, so Jack Smith requested them to just take the case and they declined saying they wanted to let the DC court decide first. Then they took the appeal a month or so later anyways. Now they have held hearings, but even if they rule against Trump, all they have to do is delay until late July and they know that the justice department won’t be able to resume the trial in time.

    In the documents case, which is the most fundamentally simple case, Eileen Cannon has ratfucked the whole process to the point that it’s unlikely to start before July. It should be an open and shut case, but she’s entertaining all sorts of crazy legal theories and giving them months to elaborate on them.

    • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s been 4 fucking years since Trump has left office. A regular person would never get his trial delayed for that long. If a trial can be delayed for 4 fucking years just because the accused is a powerful individual, it means that the rule of law doesn’t apply the same to everyone. If powerful people are exempt from the rule of law, democracy is dead.

      • Starbuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well, that’s Merrick Garland’s fault and there is a lot of blame there. He thought he could take the high road, avoid all this, and let Trump slink off into the shadows like every other failed presidential candidate.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      They need to delay until at least November, which is when they know what the Constitutional Originalism says about the case.

    • suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Cannon

      Out of interest, isn’t there a way in the US justice system to take a clearly not impartial judge off a case? I think it’s proven beyond any reasonable doubt that her tactics are politically motivated and unnatural / untypical compared to the usual procedure…

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Just like with police, judges and politicians both have LOWER expectations for conduct than the random citizen for some reason.

        We random normal people have to disclose & avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest working for ordinary boring companies. I’ve taken that training more than once.