The conflicts of interest in both the Trump and Hunter Biden cases grow more stunning every day.
Believe it or not, it was THE NEW YORK TIMES that reported this: that the young judge just assigned to the Georgia Trump case once worked for Fani Willis, the Fulton County DA who is bringing the charges.
Law professor Jonathan Turley said Wednesday evening that he was prepared to give this young, relatively inexperienced judge the benefit of the doubt. The key to these cases, he told Laura Ingraham, is the “essence” of the judge, “as opposed to the extent of their experience.” In other words, you want someone who’s going to listen to both sides and be fair, “to understand this is a historical moment” that calls for an assurance to both sides that this is going to be a fair trial.
This is always a concern, he said, with state judges who are elected. “Being viewed as in any way helpful to Donald Trump in Atlanta is not a way to get re-elected,” he said. (Before continuing, let’s pause to consider the implications of that last observation --- what it tells us about the state of ‘justice’ in the United States…………..)
Turley says it’s going to take “a great deal of integrity and courage” from this judge to do this the right way “even if it’s taken the wrong way by many people who will be voting in the judicial election.” He might have to stand up to “his people” and say that getting re-elected isn’t worth doing the wrong thing. (This is a bit reminiscent of Mark Twain’s Huck Finn, threatened with hell if he doesn’t turn in a slave and deciding, “All right then, I’ll go to hell.”)
As for Willis’ goal of starting the trial on March 4 --- which just happens to be the day before the Super Tuesday primaries --- “it’s clearly going to run into problems,” according to Turley. “This schedule is really grossly unfair to Donald Trump.” This is, he says, a “massive production” with 19 people on trial,” and he outlines the complications and constitutional questions that would have to be raised. “The question is, why this mad rush? Why is everyone not just piling on indictments, but jamming together these trials, daisy-chaining them, from Super Tuesday to virtually the inauguration, if you count the civil cases as well?”
The answer to these questions should be obvious.
“At some point judges are going to have to step in,” he says, “and be a mature voice, and say, ‘Look, okay, STOP IT. I mean, this guy has got to prepare a defense in multiple cases; you’re not the first prosecutor to file, and, get in line.” But of course, that would interfere with Trump’s opponents’ relentless carpet-bombing of him before the election.
Ingraham asked Turley about something we mentioned yesterday: “co-conspirator” Mark Meadows’ call for the case to be moved from state to federal court, given that special counsel Jack Smith has already filed similar charges in federal court. Turley believes it is possible “because we’re living in uncertain and interesting times” and “there are issues here that President Trump will raise.” Many actions and conversations occurred while Trump was still President and different considerations applied. “In some ways,” he says, “Willis may have really tripped the wire here. You know, I call this sort of the Jackson Pollack school of prosecution --- she threw EVERYTHING against the canvas and looked to see if a picture emerged.”
By making everything part of the conspiracy, he explains, “she also tripped wires with regards to his time as President, and that has created this question of whether it can be removed.”
In his latest column, Turley explains why “the Willis indictment is a serious threat to Trump but also to our system of democratic process.” To those obsessed with getting Trump, that doesn’t even seem to matter.
We love the suggestion by J. D. Rucker that Trump and the other 18 “co-conspirators” in the Georgia case should sue DA Fani Willis for malicious criminal prosecution. It’s right there in the Georgia Code…
If this isn’t “abusive litigation,” as phrased in the code, I don’t know what is. What makes the indictment of Trump “malicious” is the timing of it, which under legitimate circumstances would have come a couple of years ago. The only reason to wait till now would be to inflict the most massive amount of damage possible on Trump’s presidential campaign.
Rucker advises the Trump defense team to jump on this soon and make the case that Willis and the state “targeted Trump at this specific time to upend his presidential campaign just ahead of primary season.” He thinks Trump might win that case, and “deliver real consequences to the corrupt District Attorney.” Now THAT would be some justice...
RELATED: With so much in the news about the defiling of the “justice” system in Georgia by a DA determined to take Trump down at any cost, it would’ve been easy to overlook something outrageous Hunter’s attorneys did in the courtroom of Judge Maryellen Noreika.
Hunter’s team actually said that federal prosecutors had “reneged” on an agreed-upon plea deal that we now know even included a clause about “future immunity.” They said they signed the agreement in court last month and intend to abide by it. It doesn’t seem to matter that the judge later brought up areas of apparent disagreement that resulted in those very attorneys saying the deal was dead.
Attorneys Chris Clark and Abbe Lowell responded to the government’s motion to scrap the entire deal by accusing Special Counsel Weiss of reneging on “the previously agreed-upon plea agreement.” The part of the deal that included the gun diversion agreement --- which was also the part that included the broad grant of immunity for any possible crimes that have been investigated (!) --- had been signed by prosecutors, they said, and was therefore “binding” and “still in effect.” By “possible crimes,” they’re talking about such charges as FARA violations; that is to say, failure to register as an agent of a foreign entity. Anyone who thinks this is not a big deal should ask Paul Manafort. (Important side note: we know that if Hunter violated FARA, the case can be made that his father did, too.)
It’s really quite hilarious to see the DOJ and Hunter’s attorneys arguing about this now. It seems like only yesterday they were like peas in a pod.
Guy Benson at TOWNHALL has more details and also makes some great points about the appointment of David Weiss (of all people!) as special counsel, “the same guy who’s fashioned the most favorable legal and political outcomes imaginable for the Bidens, given the facts with which he’s been presented.”