We need your help! Join our growing army and click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or give the gift of Revolver—simply select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. If you want to give extra during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation — whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes towards the battle to save our great nation.

In an absurd twist of irony, while accusing Trump of “election interference,” the current judge and the Biden regime have set the former president’s trial date for the day before Super Tuesday, effectively meddling in the 2024 GOP primary themselves. Are they even trying to hide their cheating these days? Apparently not.

Fox News:

The federal judge presiding over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Trump, which alleges interference in the 2020 presidential election, set the trial date for March 4, 2024 – right in the middle of the GOP presidential primary calendar.

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Tanya Chutkan rejected a proposal by Trump’s defense team that the trial begin in April 2026 – long after the results of the 2024 presidential election.

Instead, she set the date far closer to one proposed by Smith and the government, who wanted the trial to begin on Jan. 2, 2024. They suggested it would last approximately four to six weeks. That date would have fallen just weeks before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary.

If you need further evidence that this is an utter political farce, consider this little fact: in the D.C. Federal District, no case has ever gone from indictment to trial in just five months.

Americans are understandably livid about this entire spectacle, and the brazen timing is just the cherry on top. However, this strategy could actually backfire, according to an anonymous  “court expert” who spoke with conservative commentator and bestselling author Larry Schweikart.

Here’s what Larry’s “court expert” had to say:

From Zen Master, my court expert:

“Judge Chutkan set a March 4, 2024 trial date. I’d be quite surprised if the trial occurs then. Trump is asserting the defense of presidential immunity. Let’s assume that Judge Chutkan rules against him. That ruling is immediately appealable; that is, if he has immunity, he cannot be tried. The appeal will take time to wind its way through the D.C. Circuit. Let’s assume that Trump loses there. He undoubtedly will seek Supreme Court review. This too will take time, especially if the Supreme Court grants review.”

I know the Supes can grant expedited review, as they did in Bush v. Gore. But would they grant expedited review to a COURT? Not sure. Have asked Zen Master.

They would grant expedited review to Trump, a defendant, but in this case he might (or might not) request it.

And there’s more from the Zen Court Master:

More from Zen Master on the timing of judicial processes moving forward:

“It would bump it into 2025. The D.C. Circuit would have to consider the appeal. The scheduling (briefing and oral argument) would be set by the court. The ruling could come at any time; there’s no set deadline by which judges must rule. After that (if Trump loses), he could seek en banc review (review by the full appeals court) and then Supreme Court review. JUDGE CHUTKAN MUST FIRST RULE; it is unclear when she will. Only then can Trump appeal.

Basically, the likelihood of this trial kicking off just a day before Super Tuesday is pretty low. President Trump has various appeal options to stall these tyrants. Additionally, there’s another legal avenue he could explore known as “certiorari before judgment” — as Darren Beattie has astutely noted on Twitter.

So, what does that mean exactly? Well, according to Wikipedia, certiorari before judgment is where the Supreme Court is asked to immediately review the decision of a United States District Court without an appeal having been decided by a United States Court of Appeals, for the purpose of expediting the proceedings and obtaining a final decision.

Certiorari before judgment is extremely rare and seldom granted, but this might just be the sort of case where it’s justified. According to Wikipedia, “Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that this procedure will be followed ‘only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.'” If there’s any case that might be “of such imperative public importance” to necessitate the Supreme Court overruling biased District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, it would certainly be this one, where a presidential election and the future of the entire nation is at stake.

Interestingly, this conservative Supreme Court has been much more likely to grant certiorari before judgment than previous Supreme Courts, according to SCOTUSBlog.

SUPPORT REVOLVER — DONATE — SUBSCRIBE — NEWSFEED — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — TWITTER