Thank you for this, Tom. I have always believed we all need to work our tails off to elect Biden, with Democratic control of the Senate and House. But here’s my no doubt naive question: Is it a federal law, an ironclad tradition, or just sort of a tradition but not binding, that in the federal judicial system, deference is given to the j…
Thank you for this, Tom. I have always believed we all need to work our tails off to elect Biden, with Democratic control of the Senate and House. But here’s my no doubt naive question: Is it a federal law, an ironclad tradition, or just sort of a tradition but not binding, that in the federal judicial system, deference is given to the judge presiding over the defendant’s first trial? Jack Smith is a very smsrt and experienced guy. Signs so far indicate that he really wants Trump to face justice. If we assume that’s true, why would he file the documents indictment first, knowing that Judge “Anything for you, Donald” Cannon would provide Trump with gratifying trial delays, if he had any reason to believe that this deference thing would allow Cannon to effectively scuttle the other trials, and render moot everything he and his large team are working so hard to achieve, to hold Defendant Trump fully accountable, and make it stick?
I am not suggesting any of us should slack off on working to elect Democrats, far from it. But what about the above questions? I have heard many commentators with credentials say that scheduling these trials will be a complex problem, but none of them has mentioned this deference thing.
Not being a lawyer, I don't know the answers to your questions (GaryInSanDiego and other attorneys - feel free to jump in here), but "tradition" does hold sway in the system, and given that there are two other trials in New York (E. Jean Carroll's second defamation suit and Alvin Bragg's commercial fraud case) scheduled to happen in February and March respectively, it would be difficult to stick the January 6 trial in there before the Mar-A-Lago trial. Trump could legitimately claim he was being ganged-up on.
I'm not an attorney, either. I can imagine judicial tradition has power, *and* I hope Jack Smith is determined to have Defendant Trump tried for the Jan. 6 conspiracy in time for a verdict before the 2024 election. Although it's a less desirable alternative, ultimate cheeseburger karma before that date would do.
Thank you for this, Tom. I have always believed we all need to work our tails off to elect Biden, with Democratic control of the Senate and House. But here’s my no doubt naive question: Is it a federal law, an ironclad tradition, or just sort of a tradition but not binding, that in the federal judicial system, deference is given to the judge presiding over the defendant’s first trial? Jack Smith is a very smsrt and experienced guy. Signs so far indicate that he really wants Trump to face justice. If we assume that’s true, why would he file the documents indictment first, knowing that Judge “Anything for you, Donald” Cannon would provide Trump with gratifying trial delays, if he had any reason to believe that this deference thing would allow Cannon to effectively scuttle the other trials, and render moot everything he and his large team are working so hard to achieve, to hold Defendant Trump fully accountable, and make it stick?
I am not suggesting any of us should slack off on working to elect Democrats, far from it. But what about the above questions? I have heard many commentators with credentials say that scheduling these trials will be a complex problem, but none of them has mentioned this deference thing.
Thank you again for your chilling post.
Not being a lawyer, I don't know the answers to your questions (GaryInSanDiego and other attorneys - feel free to jump in here), but "tradition" does hold sway in the system, and given that there are two other trials in New York (E. Jean Carroll's second defamation suit and Alvin Bragg's commercial fraud case) scheduled to happen in February and March respectively, it would be difficult to stick the January 6 trial in there before the Mar-A-Lago trial. Trump could legitimately claim he was being ganged-up on.
I'm not an attorney, either. I can imagine judicial tradition has power, *and* I hope Jack Smith is determined to have Defendant Trump tried for the Jan. 6 conspiracy in time for a verdict before the 2024 election. Although it's a less desirable alternative, ultimate cheeseburger karma before that date would do.
That's what I hope for every day - the fatal hamberder!