LOS ANGELES.–Overwhelming disappointment swept in the press that the Supreme Court didn’t take up Special Counsel Jack Smith’s urgent request to determine whether or not former 77-year-old President Donald Trump is subject to criminal prosecution for alleged crimes committed while president. How is it possible for Smith to convene a grand jury and charge Trump with 27 felonies without knowing whether he’s subject to criminal prosecution? When it comes to the press, they’re all despondent over the Supreme Court’s refusal to grand a writ of certiorari before the D.C. Circuit Court reviews the case. When Trump was investigated by former Special Counsel Robert Muller for 22-monts and a cost of $40 million, the press was also deeply disappointed when Mueller acquitted Trump March 23, 2019, finding no link between Trump or his 2016 with the Kremlin.
Democrats and the press are so intertwined at this point they can’t tell how the Democrats’ political agenda influences the press. Knowing Trump’s despised in the press should be warning for any court trying to guarantee Trump the rule of law, presumption of innocence before a jury of his peers hears the case. Federal judges presiding over Trump’s Jan. 6 obstruction case Judge Tanya Chutkan and Mar-Lago classified docs case Judge Aileen Cannon, have told Trump to not talk about the cases in public for fear to prejudicing the eventual trials. Issuing gag order against Trump but giving the media open invitation to discuss all the evidence against Trump 24/7 on national TV makes no sense. Why don’t federal judges have to enforce the rule of law? It’s no wonder that Trump wants his case tossed out, realizing that he has no rule of law applying to his cases.
Every media source hangs on every word of Special Counsel Jack Smith, acting like it’s his civic duty of convict Trump of all crimes suggested by a grand jury. Smith told the Supreme Court that it was the utmost urgency to start Trump’s trial on March 4, the arbitrary date set by prosecutors and Judge Chutkan. But what’s the rush to go to trial, other than for political reasons? What difference does it make to Smith whether he tries Trump before or after the Nov. 3, 2024 presidential election? Media was profoundly disappointed as if the Supreme Court refused to prosecute a Sept. 11 terrorist or war criminal. Why does the media have a such vested interest in seeing Trump charged, prosecuted and convicted? What does the U.S. press get from Trump’s charges, prosecution and conviction? Smith antagonized the Supreme Court asking for an urgent writ of certiorari, when it’s in hands of the Circuit Court.
Supreme Court can only conclude that Smith has an ax to grind in charging, prosecuting and convicting Trump. Smith operates with Trump supporters believing that he is politically motivated, much the same way as former Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch when she authorized, as head of the Justice Department, former FBI Director James Comey to open a counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his 2016 campaign. It didn’t matter to Comey that he used Hillary’s bogus Steele Dossier, alleging Trump’s ties with the Kremlin. Even if Russian president Vladimir Putin wanted Trump elected in 2016, it doesn’t mean that he interfered with the election. Putin would like to see Trump win the 2024 election to stop Biden’s reckless proxy war that’s destroyed much of Ukraine in the name of democracy.
U.S. press must take an honest inventory of its political bias in reporting about Trump and his upcoming trials. Smith might not face the delay he thinks as the Circuit Court is due to take up the immunity case on Jan. 9. If they rule quickly, Smith could then ask the Supreme Court again for a writ of certiorari to decide, once and for all, whether a former president can be charged-and-prosecuted for alleged crimes in office. Smith has no real facts linking Trump to the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. Smith was given the advice of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee that concluded, for whatever reason, that Trump planned and orchestrated the Capitol insurrection. No U.S. new source, broadcast or print, has provided proof that Trump planned-and-orchestrated the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. All the media has reported is pure conjecture based on what Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021.
Whatever Trump did or didn’t do on Jan. 6, 2021 to stop the insurrection does not automatically supply facts of his guilt or innocence. Only a jury of his peers can weigh the evidence and deliberate under the U.S. rule of law. Trying Trump daily 24/7 in the anti-Trump media prejudices Trump’s right under the Constitution to a fair trial. Today’s media has egregious bias against Trump, just like they did when Mueller was Special Counsel. Once Mueller competed his investigation March 23, 2019, the U.S. press lapsed into depression, with politicians like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) saying he had all the proof of Trump’s Russian collusion after Mueller said there wasn’t any. If there’s anything inappropriate going on, it’s Special Counsel Jack Smith’s vested interest in convicting Trump. Smith should want the all the facts to come out not make them up.
About The Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
