Turley criticizes Judge Chutkan and Smith for rushing Trump case to trial

Legal expert Jonathan Turley is warning that special counsel Jack Smith and Washington, D.C., Judge Tanya Chutkan are infringing on former President Donald Trump’s constitutional right to a speedy trial in an unprecedented push against the president’s main political rival.

In a Sunday op-ed, Turley wrote, “At every juncture, Smith has tried to expedite and spur the case along. This has included an attempt to cut off standard appellate options for Trump. It seems as if the entire point is to try Trump before the election.”

Despite the Justice Department policy of not proceeding within 60 days of an election, the Biden DOJ is rushing to fit the case within that window before November, Turley points out.

Turley highlights the highly unusual circumstances surrounding the government’s efforts to hold a trial before the election:

• This is a “rocket docket for a complex case of this kind,” with the D.C. courts typically facing a backlog of cases taking over two years to resolve.
• Smith is moving to restrict Trump’s appellate options, with the goal of trying him before the election.
• Smith openly admitted that he wants voters to consider the trial outcome: “It is a rare acknowledgment of a desire for a trial to become a factor in an election.”
• Chutkan has shown animus towards Trump, stating in court with previous Jan. 6 defendants that Trump should be criminally charged before charges were even brought against him.
• Chutkan has informed other cases on her docket that she might be out of the country in August, unless she is in trial for another matter.
• Smith is disregarding the Justice Department policy of avoiding proceedings 60 days before an election, arguing that since the allegations are public knowledge, it would not harm to hold the trial before the election.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann argues that the 60-day policy is an internal rule, not a law, and that the public attacks on Trump make it suitable to go ahead with the trial during the election.

Turley exposes Weissmann as a hypocrite, citing his previous stance on prosecutions close to an election.

The urgency to prosecute Trump before the election is selective and concerning, as it is handled differently because of his status as a former president and potential rival to the current sitting president, according to Turley.

“The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is,” Turley concludes. “As the calendar continues to shrink, claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person.”