Search Posts

Of course it is, and the unfairness of this Harris is not just in the four corners of the case. You know, it's peculiar, as you point out, that former President Trump can't speak about the witnesses, can't speak about various things connected to the case, but other witnesses in the case are not gagged. But the other thing, and this is what I think is the arrogance of the way the courts have approached their task with these four indictments against the former president who is running for election in November. There are things in life and things in America that are more important than the administration of justice in a single case. And one of them is the right of the American people to have robust debate in connection with an election for the most important office, not just in the country, but in the world. And we have a situation where President Trump is the only person who's gagged. So Joe Biden can say whatever he wants about the president's travails. Other opponents of former President Trump can say whatever they want. And he's the guy who's in the middle of the vortex, and he can't say anything. That has consequences, not just for the administration of justice in this trial, but for how we run our campaigns. It's not just that he can't talk. And he said, you know, I took a big lead in the polls. Amazingly, he's done quite well not talking about this case, he doesn't have to, everybody else is, to the chagrin of one man, President Biden. So he sent his campaign surrogates out yesterday, Robert De Niro, another octogenarian who, you know, was struggling, but whatever. He goes outside the courthouse and then begins to battle for President Biden and trying to soak up some of that limelight. You know, Andy, it is amazing when you look at how politically tinged this entire process is. And we are still sitting here now waiting for a jury to deliberate. >> Yeah, and here's the amazing thing, Harris, this is the trial because it's a state trial that I think Biden would have been able to say that all this stuff Trump is saying about how I'm in control of everything. You know, that's a state thing, I don't have anything to do with it. He sends his surrogates here, which basically puts his mark on it. But the other thing I want people to understand is that in any other context in the United States, if a local state prosecutor were trying to enforce federal law, the Justice Department would be papering the state courts and the local federal court with all kinds of motions to try to prevent that from happening. The Biden Justice Department is perfectly content to have Alvin Bragg enforcing federal law as long as it's against President Trump. But he's not enforcing it in a way that is consistent with what the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department would normally do. And I don't think the Justice Department would countenance this in any situation other than a prosecution of Trump. >> Andy McCarthy, always great to get you in focus your expertise.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Nine days. That's how long Donald Trump has to respond to a new motion filed by special counsel Jack Smith earlier today. Smith is asking the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling on whether Trump has presidential immunity for his actions related to his objections to the results of the 2020 election. Of course, all the usual suspects say it's all about making sure the trains run on time. I do think it's a smart move, Jake. I think it's a necessary move, in fact, because this is, as a practical matter, the only real way Jack Smith can hold on to his current trial date, which is March 4th, 2024. It's his only chance of keeping this case on track. Now, that's a load of bunk. It's notable, right, that in his request Jack Smith says it's important to decide it quickly, but he never gives any reason as to why. The only sensible explanation is that Smith filed this request because he wants Trump tried, convicted, and sentenced before the 2024 election. Joining me now, Christopher Landau. Chris has argued before the court several times, and also clerk for Justices Thomas and Scalia. Chris, explain this for us. All right. Well, it's good to be here, Laura. The special counsel filed two motions today. One was an extraordinary motion to have the Supreme Court decide this important immunity issue before the court of appeals. I mean, the district court, we have three levels in our system, district court, court of appeals, Supreme Court. The normal path is for the case to go to the court of appeals. Jack Smith wants the Supreme Court to basically take that case before the court of appeals has even decided it. Why? Well, I think it's obvious. The mask is coming off, Laura, that this is about election interference. As you just said, this is all about the timetable that they want to get Trump convicted before the 2024 election. So you have to speed it up. This is highly unusual. Look, they brought an incredibly unprecedented case. Never before in American history has anything like this come up through the legal system. Obviously, Trump has legal defenses. Like I was president then, and there's very tricky immunity questions. Okay. Instead of having the legal process play itself out like it usually does, they're insisting that there is imperative public importance in this. Yeah. Public importance is that Biden's down in like five, six, seven swing states. Laura, it is one of the most depressing things as an American to see that we are really in a banana republic where this is again, there's no way to explain this other than election interference. They want a DC jury essentially to decide the 2024 election by having this jurisdiction where, by the way, in the last election, Biden got 92% of the votes and Trump is five. So they want to tell the rest of the country, oh no, Trump was criminally convicted in DC. Are you going to vote for a convicted felon? I mean, this is all a setup. And again, the legal system, whoever's right or wrong on some of these legal issues, we have a process. And I think it is particularly important in an election case like this to make sure that the special counsel crosses his T's and dots his eyes. Why doesn't Congress bring him to testify on Capitol Hill? Where is the accountability? Congress has a role here. Does it not? This is why Justice Scalia thought all of this was basically unconstitutional. This whole special counsel thing. They're accountable to no one. The Biden Justice Department acts. I mean, this is such a charade. Like, oh no, it's not us. It's this special counsel who's doing it. Yeah. Well, Politico just reported moments ago, Chris, that Smith has extracted data from the cell phone Trump used while he was in the White House and plans to present evidence of his findings to the DC jury to demonstrate how Trump used the phone in the weeks during which he attempted to subvert it. I mean, this is what it is now in a presidential election year. You're going to take the cell phone of the guy who's beaten the other guy by how many points? Laura, I mean, come on. You know, there was no question that January 6th, if Trump is the nominee, will be a major issue, but the Democrats don't want to fight this in the political arena. They want to say, oh no, this is a criminal case, folks. This is, you know, this is the mighty halls of justice. This is again, this motion to the Supreme Court can only be explained by their desire on timing. There's no imperative public need to have this trial in March of next year. What's the imperative public need on that? No, it's convenient politically because otherwise it's very unlikely given normal judicial, uh, procedures and processes that this won't be decided before the election. And that's the worst of all worlds for them. The voters, voters don't seem to buy into any of this. Well, you know, I mean, listen, we'll, you know, we'll see what happens. I have to say the one law that they can't manipulate is the law of unintended consequences. And so far it's not worked that well for them on this. Chris Landau, you made something complicated, really understandable. Great to to see you, as always. - Always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.