Trump’s federal election interference case will go to trial, according to a federal judge.
Trump’s attorneys and Special Counsel Jack Smith sparred in court on Monday about the trial’s schedule. A January 2 trial date, according to Smith, would put the public’s desire for a speedy conclusion first.
Secret government manifestation pill 💊?
More than 2.5 years from now, in April 2026, is when Trump’s attorneys have asked for a trial date. They highlighted the requirement for sufficient time to examine the copious discovery materials offered by the government. Taking charge of the case is Judge Tanya Chutkan.
As Smith files criminal charges against Trump for his alleged role in the Capitol disturbance, legal experts on both sides are uniting to defend him.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown Law School, recently spoke out on Fox News over the Biden administration’s unrelenting pursuit of Donald Trump. He thinks that more and more Americans are becoming tired of it and seeing these instances as merely political.
According to reports, Trump is accused with conspiring to defraud the United States, obstructing a government investigation, obstructing an attempt to do so, and conspiring against rights. The last allegation is based on an old statute from 1900 that mostly concerned with impeding traffic.
“This is a free speech-killing indictment. There’s no way around it. I write a great deal in academia in the free-speech area, and I have rarely seen a more chilling filing by the Department of Justice,” Turley said.
“The question that people have to ask themselves is, when is the price too high? People are enraged, but what is the price too high to bag Donald Trump? This indictment is a prohibitive cost. Meaning what they are attempting to do is criminalize what they consider to be disinformation,” he added.
“And I have to tell you, this indictment is a really sad moment for me. I hoped that Smith is going to indict on January 6th, that he would find unassailable evidence and unquestioned legal authority. He has neither in this indictment,” Turley added.
“This is a speaking indictment but it doesn’t say very much. It just says that we think Trump is lying and that he didn’t believe this. I can’t tell you how faciously ridiculous this claim is. It starts by saying, of course, you can say false things in the campaign, but then says that Trump knew they were false. Is that the test going forward in terms of criminalizing political speech?” Turley continued.
WATCH: Church Leaders PRAYED you’d never see this…
“Smith is just not only going to have to just bulldoze through the First Amendment, he’s going to have to bulldoze through a line of cases by the Supreme Court,” he said.
In a Wednesday interview, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz made a startling admission. He cautioned Smith that if he doesn’t take care, he may go to jail.
“You know the worst thing about this indictment, under the terms of this indictment, Jack Smith can be indicted. Let me explain to you why,” Dershowitz said. “The statute says the following, two or more persons conspire to injure and deny somebody the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured him by the constitution.
“What if a court ultimately ruled that Donald Trump had a right under the First Amendment to make his Jan. 6 speech and to do what he did? Then Jack Smith will have conspired to deny him of that right. That’s how serious this is,” Dershowitz said.
“Jack Smith … deliberately, willfully and maliciously leaves out the words that President Trump spoke on Jan. 6 in his terrible speech, which I disagree with, but what he said was, ‘I want you to assemble peacefully and patriotically,’” Dershowitz added further information (see below).
“Jack [Smith] leaves that out. That is a lie, a lie, an omission lie, and if you’re going to indict somebody for telling lies, don’t tell lies in the indictment,” Dershowitz continued. “If you’re going to indict somebody for denying people their constitutional rights, don’t deny them their constitutional rights by indicting them for free speech. That’s how hypocritical this is.”
“The Supreme Court has said in an opinion by Chief Justice [William] Rehnquist … under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false opinion or a false idea. The response to a false idea is the marketplace of ideas or Election Day,” Dershowitz went on to elaborate.
“So you’re right, this is a very, very dangerous indictment, dangerous to the First Amendment and also dangerous to the Sixth Amendment because it directly goes after Trump’s lawyers, names them as unindicted coconspirators without giving their names, but says they’re criminals for giving him advice on how to challenge the election,” he said.
