Image 01 Image 03

Trump March 4 DC Trial Date is “Pretty Shocking”

Trump March 4 DC Trial Date is “Pretty Shocking”

My appearance on NTD TV: “I don’t know how [the Judge] justifies the day before Super Tuesday. Clearly that puts the defense under enormous burden to prepare their defense…. I think this really does deprive Trump of his right to a fair trial.”

I appeared on NTD TV’s Good Morning Show with Kevin Hogan to talk about the March 4, 2024, trial date set in the DC prosecution of Donald Trump.

Trump’s lawyer has said the date deprives Trump of effective assistant of counsel:

Lauro: “We will certainly abide by your honor’s ruling, as we must. We will not be able to provide adequate representation.” Warned that the “trial date will deny President Trump the opportunity to have effective assistance of counsel.”

Retired criminal defense lawyer Leslie McAdoo Gordon, who has extensive experience in DC federal court, made a similar point:

Here is the briefing schedule that Judge Chutkan issued in DJT’s DC case today. These dates are patently ridiculous & constitute a violation of his 6th Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Disgraceful.

I agree with them, and made that point during the interview.

The first half of which related to the DC case, the second half to the Georgia case:

Partial Transcript (Auto-generated, may contain transcription errors)

Hogan (00:00):

And we’re going to look at Trump’s cases from a legal standpoint. Let’s get some analysis on his trial date for his election case and his September 6th arraignment in Georgia. Bill Jacobson, professor at Cornell Law School joins us live. Bill, it’s great to have you with us this morning. March 4th, 2024, that’s about six months away. So does that give the defense enough time to go through all the defense material in the election case?

WAJ (00:24):

No, it really doesn’t. It’s a pretty shocking date. Of course, we are up against a political calendar, but that’s supposedly not going to influence the judge. That is a very quick date if you look at the amount of material they have to get through. If you look at her schedule that she ordered, there’s motions taking place practically every other week. Designations of experts. I mean, this is a significant sized case. This is not a simple case. There’s going to be lots of witnesses, a lot to get ready for trial. I think she set a date, which really does prejudice Donald Trump in his ability to mount a vigorous and, you know, constitutionally, required defense here. So I, I think that’s a pretty shocking date.

Hogan (01:08):

You mentioned that Judge Tanya Chutkin does not consider the political calendar. So what factors go into considering a trial date?

WAJ (01:16):

Well, she says she doesn’t consider the political calendar, but it’s kind of hard to imagine that, when she picks a date right before Super Tuesday. The prosecution wanted it early January, and the defense, I think, made a mistake by asking for April of 2026. They clearly don’t need that much time. I think if they had maybe asked for a more reasonable date, but the defense does have to consider the political calendar. So it’s hard. The problem here is the prosecution brought this case in an election cycle. They could have brought it a year ago, and we wouldn’t be worried about times and rushing things. I think that the judge considers the right of the defendant to a speedy trial and the right of the people to a speedy trial or to a reasonable trial date. I don’t know how she justifies the day before Super Tuesday. Clearly that puts the defense under enormous burden to prepare their defense

Hogan (02:12):

And we’ll see how that impacts voters. And Trump does plan to appeal this. So what factors are to be considered there?

WAJ (02:18):

I don’t know how he’s gonna appeal a trial date. Maybe his lawyers know more than I do, and they very well might. But normally an appeals court is not going to get involved in micromanaging a trial calendar. After the result is in, if he’s found guilty, that might be an issue for appeal, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. In fact, his lawyer said in court, at least as it was reported, that this will deprive the defendant of his right to counsel. That there’s no way they can do a proper job going through all the documents within this timeframe. And again, according to reports, the judge’s response was, well, you don’t have to review everything. You just have to review things that relate to what Trump said.

And I think that’s a completely ridiculous statement. Of course, they have to go through everything because it’s the defense lawyer’s position to decide what’s important and relevant and not important. It’s not the prosecution’s decision, and it’s not the judge’s decision, at least not in terms of discovery as opposed to what gets admitted at trial.

So, I think this really does deprive Trump of his right to a fair trial. Look, I’ve always said, I think I’ve said it on your show before, that this should have been brought a year ago. I wish if they’re going to bring these charges, that they would’ve done it in a more timely fashion. But the prosecution didn’t. The prosecution created this problem, and I don’t think that you should damage a defendant’s right to self-defense, and a right to defend himself, I should say, in court properly, just because the judge thinks it’s better to do it. I think this is really a bad decision by the judge, but I don’t know that it’s appealable right away.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s not shocking if you are in a banana republic.

All the tyranny, fascism, racism etc. the left accuse Pres. Trump of doing, is really their sole doing.

A biased judge and jury pool, a special counsel coordinating with the white house, and patently absurd charges that contravene the constitutional rights and prerogatives of the president (yes, he was the president during the timeframe in question) also tend to show that the process is not entirely proper or fair.

    MattMusson in reply to Concise. | August 30, 2023 at 8:33 am

    DC judges are assigned randomly. The word is out there that they just kept running the Randomizer over and over until her name popped up. See, it was Random.

    Fatkins in reply to Concise. | August 30, 2023 at 6:05 pm

    There is no evidence of bias with the judge, nor is there any evidence of coordination. Making stuff up isn’t much of an argument.

      Concise in reply to Fatkins. | August 30, 2023 at 9:42 pm

      Interesting. I guess you’re entitled to own ill-informed opinion but you’re not entitled to your own facts. WH communicated with DOJ and National Archivist prior to raid and waived President’s Trump’s claim of privilege. WH staffers met with special counsel before the DC indictment. And on the record statements showing Judge Chutkan’s animus to President Trump are too numerous to list in a comments section. A little bit of misinformation on your part I think, although (at least up to this point) you haven’t tried to defend the meritless charges or the inherent bias of holding a trial in a venue where 90 percent of the voters are democrats.

        SHAGONTHEFLY in reply to Concise. | September 1, 2023 at 3:50 am

        & All of that was Legal & above Board . POTUS can Legally waive Privilege . WhiteHouse Staffers were Legally interviewed during Criminal Investigations . & a Lot of BS GASLIGHTING on yours .

          So much for “independent” special counsels. And presidents coordinating with the DOJ to target political opponents is only “above board” in a police state. But you sound like the kind of insightful, balanced legal mind Judge Chutkan undoubtedly looks for in a clerk. You should apply, unless there’s some Antifa job that you’re already eyeing.

        leoamery in reply to Concise. | September 3, 2023 at 1:17 am

        “And on the record statements showing Judge Chutkan’s animus to President Trump are too numerous to list in a comments section.”

        Give us two of her statements then.

          Concise in reply to leoamery. | September 4, 2023 at 7:38 pm

          Ok. Sentencing for Christine Priola: “[The] people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant, not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy” and “It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

          Sentencing for Matthew Mazzocco: “He went there to support one man who he viewed had the election taken from him. In total disregard of a lawfully conducted election, he went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country or in support of democracy.”

          And here’s an extra one just because I’m a nice. Sentencing for Robert Palmer:
          “And it is true, Mr. Palmer you have made a very good point, one that has been made before – that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged…”

          And on top of that she conflated (quite stupidly) Jan 6 with Boston Marathon bombing and 9/11 when setting the absurd and completely unprecedented early trial date for President Trump, one day before super Tuesday.

          It should also be noted that she donated money to Obama. represented Burisma and worked at the same law firm with Hunter Biden. And finally, she was the judge who ruled against President Trump forcing him to turn records over the Jan 6 witch hunt committee, commenting sarcastically “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President…” Bonus, the democrats wrongfully and selectively destroyed records of that same committee.

          Now go away and do whatever it is Trolls do on a holiday.

      PuttingOnItsShoes in reply to Fatkins. | August 30, 2023 at 9:43 pm

      Oh I see you’re a troll I didn’t realize that at first.

      Well I get that it’s easy to say stupid things behind the veil of anonymity, I still don’t understand the appeal of it.

      SHAGONTHEFLY in reply to Fatkins. | September 1, 2023 at 3:48 am

      Butt…Isn’t this the MAGA PLAYBOOK . Make Up Allegations without any Facts ? See …” THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN . ‘ JOE BIDEN is BEHIND This …Whatever ” THIS ” actually is . ” THIS IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE “…. ” WE ARE BEING PERSECUTED “…while Ignoring any & All Facts Exposing the Commission of a FELONY . TRUMP has a Right to Argue his Defense Theories in PRETRIAL HEARINGS . GOOD LUCK. Oh & Don’t forget to Mention 1 HUNTER’S LAPTOP . 2 HILLARY’S SERVER 3 ALTERNATE FACTS 4 DEEP STATE 5 THE CABAL

    SamAdams1 in reply to Concise. | September 4, 2023 at 11:18 am

    Not entirely proper and fair?

    None of this is proper or fair. It’s unchecked tyranny. Entirely.

Shocking, perhaps, if the idea is to make sure Trump is the candidate. Not shocking at all if the idea is to eliminate him from running.

These people, especially the judge, have no issue with making the rule of law a political weapon. She is the Queen of Lawfare, the sister of the Queen of Hearts. No shock any more.

Subotai Bahadur | August 29, 2023 at 8:47 pm

Depriving President Trump of his rights under the law, indeed all rights under the Constitution, is the purpose for this entire fiasco, And they intend to use the same process against any citizens to appeal to the rule of law. They would not treat the most frequently convicted felon the same way, especially if they were a protected class.

Subotai Bahadur

    SHAGONTHEFLY in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | September 1, 2023 at 3:53 am

    & TRUMP can Appeal anything that he feels Violates his Rights … None of which you Specifically Mention . Must be a ‘ They ” or ‘Them ” thing ?

      Biden staffers met with a top aide to Jack Smith before the constitutionally appalling DC indictment, They were not giving testimony you ignorant troll, and it was certainly not “above board” conduct for the supposedly independent special counsel. The same Smith aide met with Biden’s WH before the Mar-a-Lago raid. You should crawl back to your troll hole. You’re just embarrasing yourself.

      leoamery in reply to SHAGONTHEFLY. | September 3, 2023 at 1:23 am

      You mean Big Don can appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, 7 of the 11 sitting judges and Obama/Slowy nominees.

      Perhaps you should reexamine General Michael Flynn’s adventures with the DC District Courts. Despite winning appeals to the DC Circuit, the only reason Flynn isn’t in jail today is that Big Don pardoned him.

      No one will be handing out pardons to Big Don.

      I guess you went to the Oberlin School of Law, Most people (not only actual lawyers) know that the vast majority of appeals, though not all, are subsequent (that means after for those from Rio Linda) a conviction at trial.

      And the Doc made the point about violation of Sixth Amendment guaranteed rights, so we can guess you troll without reading the article.

George_Kaplan | August 29, 2023 at 8:51 pm

Obama judge so perhaps that explains the political date choice?

    JohnSmith100 in reply to George_Kaplan. | August 30, 2023 at 8:03 am

    I would be interesting if it could be shown that this judge and Obama are conspiring.

      leoamery in reply to JohnSmith100. | September 3, 2023 at 1:27 am

      “I would be interesting …”

      No John, you will never be interesting.

      You might—but won’t—ask yourself why federal judicial nominations have become so contentious. It’s because it is widely assumed that Dem nominees are shock troops for the Left. Or ask Michael Flynn how fair his encounters will Judge Emmet Sullivan were.

The judge is pretending to treat President Trump like just any other citizen, as if his running for office is irrelevant.

This is brazen election interference. I assume, therefore, that President Trump’s lawyers will try to appeal to higher courts. I wish them luck. The environment is not a friendly one.

    alaskabob in reply to irv. | August 29, 2023 at 9:14 pm

    Not considering her own prejudicial statements right now. She is absolutely right for this trial… in the best tradition of the Soviet show trials.

    Fatkins in reply to irv. | August 30, 2023 at 6:07 pm

    It is irrelevant. This is you arguing Teump should have special treatment. That’s anathema to the rule of law. Try again

      Edward in reply to Fatkins. | September 3, 2023 at 9:51 am

      Your people have made a mockery of the so-called “rule of law”. The law is dying and dead in the US with our current dual system of “just us” for one group.

Shocking? More like revealing.

Fair trial is usually taken to mean that a guilty person has a 50-50 chance of getting off, and an innocent person has a 100% chance of getting off, whichever he is.

    GravityOpera in reply to rhhardin. | August 30, 2023 at 2:19 am

    Where did you hear that? That’s absurd. A fair trial is not based on the chances of getting off. Otherwise a defendant with a written confession, video evidence, eye witnesses, etc. would somehow still have a 50% chance of getting away with it.

PuttingOnItsShoes | August 29, 2023 at 10:36 pm

Jacobson: “ I think this really does deprive Trump of his right to a fair trial.”

Why aren’t you concerned about Trump’s right to have NO TRIAL?

These charges and this trial are violations of 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.

His rights have already been violated by the charges, and will be violated further if a trial occurs and even further if a conviction occurs and irredeemably if a sentence is imposed.

The law is gone.

    Amen 1,000,000 ^

    Pleas clap

    It seems surprisingly naive and that is very strange indeed


    thad_the_man in reply to PuttingOnItsShoes. | August 29, 2023 at 11:18 pm

    Because he has to look like he is supporting Trump without actually supporting Trump.

    GravityOpera in reply to PuttingOnItsShoes. | August 30, 2023 at 2:22 am

    For the slow among us please explain how you believe 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law applies.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to GravityOpera. | August 30, 2023 at 8:16 am

      How about you explain why you think 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law does not apply?

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to JohnSmith100. | August 30, 2023 at 8:34 am

        No, how about you explain how 18 U.S. Code § 242 apples to Trump because from a simple reading of the matter it doesn’t apply to Trump or the legal situation he finds himself in.

          Are you kidding?

          Trump has committed no crimes whatsoever.

          Normal daily tasks appear here as indictable criminal acts.

          The violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 is so obvious it’s infuriating.

          PuttingOnItsShoes in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | August 30, 2023 at 1:51 pm

          As a starting point, we need to explore where we diverge.

          My first question is:

          Would you characterize yourself as “seeing that Trump is experiencing any deprivation of his rights”

          Or alternatively

          Would you say: “Trump is not experiencing any deprivation of rights”?

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | August 31, 2023 at 10:52 am

          Are you kidding?

          Trump has committed no crimes whatsoever.

          Normal daily tasks appear here as indictable criminal acts.

          The violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 is so obvious it’s infuriating.


          And if that’s all you can give me then you can be safely and easily ignored as I asked how 18 U.S. Code § 242 apples to Trump. I din’t need some hysterical reply. So unless you’re willing to explain how exactly 18 U.S. Code § 242 apples to Trump then don’t bother to answer further. thank you very much.

        GravityOpera in reply to JohnSmith100. | August 30, 2023 at 11:28 am

        I’m too slow to undertstand it on my own. That’s why I’m asking for an explanation.

          Maz2331 in reply to GravityOpera. | August 30, 2023 at 4:45 pm

          Let’s start with the text of the statute, shall we?

          “TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

          Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

          The charges Smith makes in the DC case are to criminally charge what is clearly political speech and attempts to petition for redress of grievances. And even worse, he got a DC-based judge to waive his attorney-client privilege and depose his lawyers. And the incumbent president also unilaterally waived his Presidential privilege to freely consult his advisors and attorneys in confidence.

          In the Florida case, the prosecution pretends that the Presidential Records Act doesn’t even exist. That law authorizes the former president sole and unreviewable authority to denote what is a personal record and what is a presidential one. And that interpretation was upheld in a case between Bill Clinton and Legal Watch. So right there, we have a huge denial of a statutory right. And as it is a very specific statute, it overrides all more general ones that would otherwise apply.

          PuttingOnItsShoes in reply to GravityOpera. | August 30, 2023 at 5:08 pm

          Yes to Maz2331 above and so much more.

          What about the fabrication by law enforcement of evidence to obtain warrants, unlawful search and seizure, violation of attorney client privilege, right of IMPARTIAL Jury (and Judge), right to effective counsel, right to speak without sanction or censure by feds, etc.

          What about the violation of the 4th, 5th and 6th? Forth

          PuttingOnItsShoes in reply to GravityOpera. | August 30, 2023 at 5:10 pm

          What about the rights conferred by the Constitution on the President in performing his duties, which are separate from his deprived rights as a citizen.

      SHAGONTHEFLY in reply to GravityOpera. | September 1, 2023 at 3:55 am

      No One can , because these are Bogus Claims for the MAGA FAITHFUL

    What an absurd statement. No one has the right to avoid the law. You might as well rip up the constitution and call him king.

      PuttingOnItsShoes in reply to Fatkins. | August 30, 2023 at 8:15 pm

      Did you forget to use a sarc tag or are you hopelessly obtuse?

      Because unless you’re being sarcastic, nobody else here has any idea what you’re talking about since nobody here has proffered what you suggest. Please clarify before anybody tries to respond cuz it’s always embarrassing when somebody meant to be sarcastic and you respond to them as if they were serious

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | August 29, 2023 at 11:13 pm

I don’t know how [the Judge] justifies the day before Super Tuesday.

Why? What date did you expect?

This is a Soviet Show Trial. There is nothing “legal” or “judicial” about this. It is just for show and for the demonstration of arbitrary application of any so-called laws on whomever Traitor Joe and his junta decide.

This is completely expected. Anyone who knows anything about how the USSR operated could have predicted this. ANd this is why those who try to apply legal reasoning to these show trials are not only in error but doing a great disservice to the idea of the Rule of Law.

Methinks Judge Chutney is auditioning for her desired next elevation to the DC Circuit, where no doubt that most corrupt Appeals Court in the US Judiciary will put her on any appeals panel for any matters covering Jack Smith’s corruptions.

Seeing Judge Chutney’s sickly written, sloppy messes loosely termed legal opinions that are simply rubber-stamped predrawn conclusions from her handlers at the White House or DOJ, she appears to have all of the independence of Roland Freisler.

    Mauiobserver in reply to drsamherman. | August 29, 2023 at 11:37 pm

    To fully channel Judge Freisler she should make Trump appear for his appearances in oversize trousers with no belt. Then she would be on the right track. At trial she could shout down every question, comment or motion made by the defense.

These are not intelligent people and their brute machinations are apparent.

The primary goal of these cases is to tie Trump up and taint him, to prevent him being elected. The prosecutors and judges all have the same agenda, a conspiracy of interests if not a conspiracy in fact.

They don’t give a damn if it is all overturned on appeal, and they don’t expect to pay any price for their corruption.

As long as they prevent Trump from being re-elected.

We are officially a banana republic. Anyone who looks down their nose at the politics in Central and South America from now on is just a hypocrite.

    Edward in reply to novaculus. | August 30, 2023 at 10:26 am

    It took Bob McDonnell three years to get his unanimous overturning of his tainted conviction by Smith. That is what prosecutors like Smith and Andrew Weissmann count on, the damage will have been done long before the exoneration occurs (and John Q. Public will hardly ever notice).

      SHAGONTHEFLY in reply to Edward. | September 1, 2023 at 3:59 am

      WEISSMANN is RETIRED . The McDonald case had Zero to do with Electoral College FRAUD or SEDITIOUS Acts . Nice Try .

Kangaroo Courts are not about justice, and if this isn’t one no Soviet show trial was either.

Its so unbelievable how afraid of President Trump the liberal media, liberal democrats and the RINOS are

There doesn’t seem to be much coverage of the Meadows hearing from the 29th, or at least not much accurate coverage. From what I understand, the hearing seemed to go reasonably well for Meadows and if successful (to remove the case to federal court), it could have significant relevance to Trump’s case not only in Georgia but in DC as well. At the end of the day, the decision by the Fulton County DA to file this IDIOTIC case could ironically end up helping Trump, perhaps a lot.

One of the things that Biden and his administration have abandoned is optics. They no longer care what they do, looks like to the public because only two msm outlets will report it. Smith as the special counsel, Wiess as the new special counsel. The openly biased judges involved in all of these cases. The timelines of every court date. The whole world sees this as a horrible injustice but this admin doesn’t care. Once a government reaches this level of corruption, the only thing to stop it is an honest election or a rebellion.

The Witch Judge is playing a very dangerous game. She is enraging the public, especially those who are dedicated to Trump,which are legion in numbers and growing. To date, these indictments have only propelled Trump to polling heights he has never enjoyed in the past. Having said that, my own judgment is that her scheduling decisions, her past remarks, and her obvious bias is providing further legal reasons for a change of venue and/or recusal. I also question the conflicting court calendars. How can 4 trials be scheduled, all involving multiple defendants within this short timeline? It’s’ virtually impossible. We lawyers know it, the judges know it,and the public knows it. Moreover, each of these trials provides another platform forTrump to demonstrate that the criminal syndicate masquerading as the Democratic Party has their hands around the judicial system. I expect total chaos emanating from these trials will be enhanced by more crises, yet to be revealed by this criminal syndicate desperate to hold on to power knowing the loss of power will likely lead to their demise. My biggest fear is that the ObidenJUnta will provoke war with Russia or China or both to provide an excuse for postponing or canceling the election or just to burn us all down to nuclear dust praying their shelters will protect their miserable hides.

E Howard Hunt | August 30, 2023 at 10:17 am

It’s called mulatto justice.

Trump is even in the polls with Biden. He’s even. With Biden. Think about it.

“And we’re going to look at Trump’s cases from a legal standpoint.”

The very first sentence sets the pace of what is to follow. That’s why I did not read a word of that interview past that sentence. A legal standpoint? Every aspect of a criminal proceeding is rooted in a “Legal Standpoint”.

Speaking of which: How about a discussion of the law that Trump is accused of violating? From a legal standpoint, of course.

PuttingOnItsShoes | August 30, 2023 at 1:50 pm

As a starting point, we need to explore where we diverge.

My first question is:

Would you characterize yourself as “seeing that Trump is experiencing any deprivation of his rights”

Or alternatively

Would you say: “Trump is not experiencing any deprivation of rights”?

President Trump is being punished for exercising his right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.

First Amendment U.S. Constitution.

    Don in reply to gbm. | August 30, 2023 at 4:40 pm

    He was also making sure the laws were faithfully executed regarding the 2020 election; part of the oath a President takes.

      Fatkins in reply to Don. | August 30, 2023 at 6:12 pm

      No he wasn’t that’s just absurd. He exhausted all legal avenues, so he resorted to fraud. It’s really as simple as that. It would be like saying a bank robber had the right to steal money because he thought the bank over charged him on something. It’s moronic.

Chutkan’s claim of the government’s interest in a speedy trial is, IMO, ripe for an interlocutory appeal. No such right exists.

I’m not shocked at this at all.

Anyone who is does not understand the enemy.

The enemy does not recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution of the United States. Or any of its laws.

    And that works for them only so far. We are a Constitutional Republic, so their real enemy is the 10th Amendment. The states are all we have left, move to a red one if you aren’t already there.

Disappointed in Jacobson’s naïveté

    txvet2 in reply to M Poppins. | August 30, 2023 at 9:05 pm

    He’s not talking to you. His remarks were aimed at a much wider (and likely less informed) audience, and are therefore much more generalized than if they were aimed only at the LI board. I’m disappointed that so few of you realize that.

Steven Brizel | August 31, 2023 at 10:31 am

These trials are all shaping up as show trials based on unconstitutional indictments before kangaroo courts in venues where Trump cannnot get a fair trial

If I was a Trump lawyer, I’d turn the tables on them and demand a swift and speedy trial with all the trials done before the first Caucus or Primary!

So having Read the Majority of the COMMENTS …EVERYONE that wants to be more KNOWLEDGEABLE about all these INDICTMENTS & Court Cases ..should Listen to this PODCAST … 2 Very Qualified EX DOJ Lawyers discussing Legal issues that will be Key Elements in these Cases . If Not..just continue to Complain like a QNON SYCHOPHANT . Your Choice