Judges & Justices "Slow Walking" Trump Trials Cheat Justice and the Public
A look in the rear view mirror at how prosecuting Nixon's crimes were handled 50 years ago reveals what appears to be deliberate corruption today
The federal judges and justices who are “slow walking” the many trials of ex-president, and current 34 x convicted felon Donald Trump are tipping the supposedly impartial scales of justice in his favor. They are also cheating the American people of their right to have a clear resolution of the many felony criminal indictments he faces before Election Day 2024.
Iowa’s two US Senators - Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Joni Ernst - (R-IA) - have not been, and are not now, innocent, idle by standers in this growing corruption.
Trump’s entire defense against the crimes for which he has been indicted is not so much that he didn’t do what he is accused of, but rather that he had a right to do what he is accused of, and, even if he didn’t, then the trials ought to be delayed until after the 2024 election. The latter, of course, would give him the option of pulling the plug on all the federal prosecutions he faces if he is elected president again.
The “slow walking” taking place in federal courthouses - including the US Supreme Court building - fits that strategy like a hand in a custom fitted glove.
It is impossible to believe that the “slow walking” delays are are not deliberate, partisan, and corrupt. They are all three in my view.
How can I say that so confidently? Because I lived through the “Watergate Summer" of 1974 and watched how the urgent issues re: Richard Nixon’s crimes moved through the court system. The comparison of how things were handled then - even by Republicans - to how they are being handled today is stark and chilling.
I never thought I’d cite Richard Nixon and his legal problems as an example of how things are supposed to work, but today, it’s unavoidable.
Take the case of United States v Richard Nixon. The current circus of delays are laughable when compared to the speed with which the Nixon case sped through the courts that summer of 1974. That was the case that resulted in the Supreme Court ordering Nixon to turn over records related to Watergate, including his secretly recorded White House tapes - which proved to contain damning evidence of his Watergate crimes.
The Court’s ruling also made clear - specificaly - that Presidents are not above the law but are subject to it.
First a brief discussion of where things stand currently with two of the most important Trump legal issues.
Classified Stolen Secret Documents Case:
Status: Indefinitely delayed.
Trump was indicted on June 8 of last year, with a superseding indictment filed on July 27 of 2023. One year later, the case is indefinitely delayed. No trial date has even been set. Inexperienced Trump appointed Judge Aileen Cannon is dragging out consideration of frivolous motions filed with one goal in mind - to delay the trial like Senate filibusters aim to infinitely delay votes in the US Senate. Cannon ha proven to be quite willing to play along.
Trump’s Claim That He Has Absolute Immunity from All Prosecutions:
Status: Stalled at the Supreme Court
Trump coughed this claim up to delay prosecution of charges stemming from his attempt to overthrowAmerican democracy and steal the election on January 6, 2021 and before. Repubican Justices have been quite happy to “slow walk” a resolution of the matter.
That the Supreme Court would even hear this claim is baffling. The question of whether presidents are above the law was answered by the Supreme Court, definitively, 50 years ago by the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States v Nixon case. Yet, this Supreme Court first inexplicably delayed Trump’s election stealing trial by deciding to consider the argument at all, and is now inexplicably delaying announcing its ruling on the matter.
Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from all prosecutions amounts to an assertion that once somebody is elected president - especially him - they are above the law, forever. This absurdity could have - and should have - been handled in the amount of time it takes to ride the Supreme Court’s elevator from the courtroom to the justices’ cafeteria, belly laughing all the way.
Instead, this Court is treating it like it is the first time the Supreme Court has ever heard of it.
In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v Nixon - specifically - that presidents are not above the law. They said so directly. Fifty years ago.
Nixon’s successor, President Gerald Ford, agreed with Court’s ruling. That is why Ford pardoned Nixon. Had Nixon actually been above the law, as Nixon claimed and as Trump now claims, there would have been no need for a pardon. Nixon could have just climbed aboard Marine One, waved to the crowd, lifted off the White House grounds, returned home to California and enjoyed his unexpected and early “retirement.”
Instead, Ford issued a “full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Nixon agreed with the Supreme Court, too, once it spoke on the matter. That’s is why he formally accepted the pardon. That was a requirement for receiving it. Without Nixon’s formal acceptance of it, prosecution for his crimes would have continued.
So why is the Supreme Court wasting time pretending this is still some kind of “live” question, still at issue today?
Two reasons: (1) to help delay Trump’s day of reckoning; and (2) if successfully delayed long enough, to give him a chance - if elected in November - to pull the plug on the whole thing and avoid ever standing trial.
In short: They are doing it for corrupt reasons.
Iowans and their fellow Americans shouldn’t stand for it.
There are other examples from how Nixon crimes were handled in 1974 that should guide us now:
In 1974, the Supreme Court consisted of nine Justices. Three were appointed by Democratic presidents ( FDR, JFK, and LBJ) and six had been appointed by Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon, with Nixon having appointed four of the six Republicans then on the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v Nixon was unanimous and bi-partisan.
The Republicans on the Court - at least back then - all shared a quaint old idea: their job as Justices on the Supreme Court - their solemn duty - was protect the interests of the republic and the rule of law. Not their political party.
Justice William Rehnquist - a future Chief Justice - recused himself because he was personal friends with a number of Nixon’s co-conspirators. The majority decision was written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was named to that position by Richard Nixon. Two examples of Republicans on the Supreme Court 50 years ago abiding by the belief that impartial justice matters. They did their duty to protect the republic, not their party and not their friends.
And here is a really big one judges and justices ought to paying attention to these days:
The timeline for handling United States v Nixon in 1974 set a clear standard for how urgent constitutional cases should be handled. There was no slow walking then, They expedited things, recognizing the importance and urgency of resolution of these issues. Here’s the timeline:
May 1, 1974 - Nixon’s lawyers file a motion to block a subpoena for Nixon’s White House records and tape recordings.
May 20, 1974 - US District Court denies the motion to block the subpoena.
May 24, 1974 - Nixon’s lawyers appeal that decision.
May 31, 1974 - Supreme Court agrees to an expedited hearing to consider the issue, given its urgency and importance.
July 8, 1974 - Appeal is argued before the Supreme Court.
July 24, 1974 - Decision is announced. Supreme Court rejects appeal. Declares presidents are not above the law. Orders Nixon to surrender his White House records and tapes.
POSTSCRIPT: “Smoking gun” evidence of Nixon’s crimes are discovered on the White House tapes. Republican leaders from the House and Senate go to the White House and tell Nixon his support in both chambers among Republicans has evaporated and that he will be impeached by the House and likely convicted in the Senate.
AUGUST 8, 1974: Richard Nixon resigns from the presidency. A president has been held accountable under the law for his criminal acts.
The need for urgent, expedited considerations of issues raised in a case like Nixon’s - and now by Trump’s - was recognized and acted upon in the United States v Nixon case in 1974. It was two years from the Watergate break-in to Nixon’s resignation. The question of whether presidents had absolute immunity was answered by the courts in three months from the issue being raised, to it being definitively answered by the Supreme Court.
The opposite is taking place today. We have foot dragging by the courts, including the Supreme Court.
For Iowans, what happened in 1974 compared to what is happening now is more than a history lesson.
Iowa’s senior Senator, Chuck Grassley, played a key role in putting on the Supreme Court two of the justices who are corrupting Trump’s trial by “slow walking” it at the Supreme Court.
In 2016, Grassley refused to schedule hearings for nearly a year to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. He played a central role in stealing a Supreme Court appointment the Constitution said was Obama’s duty to make.
In January 2017, Grassley completed the steal by hastily convening confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch to fill the Scalia vacancy.
In 2018, Grassley - again, as Judiciary Committee Chairman - pushed through the Trump nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court. The hearing was rushed and contentious, but Republicans pushed him through to confirmation. He now sits on the Supreme Court where, with the other Republicans on the Court, he enables the “slow walk” of a Supreme Court decision on Trump’s absurd claim of absolute immunity.
As for Senator Ernst? Two days after Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, she pronounced him a victim of “political persecution.” She has not urged any court to pick up its pace to complete Trump’s trials before the November elections, but she has called for a stop to efforts to hold Trump legally accountable for the crimes for which he has been indicted by the justice system and juries of his peers.
The rot in the Republican party - its corruption - not only surrounds its presumptive 2024 presidential nominee, and Congress, but is sending down long roots in the judiciary, even at the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court.
Iowa’s two US Senators have played and continue to play an active role in establishing that rot and spreading it around. Iowans have a right to expect more than partisan hackery from both Grassley and Ernst.
Barry's extensive historical perspective helps one and all better understand what is happening today. Gov. Reynolds and MAGA types dislike someone like Barry using history to point out inconsistencies and disinformation; thus, we see Reynolds promoting weakening the teaching of history in Iowa schools
Absolutely, Barry! Great column.