Once again, Jack Smith, the principal culprit of election interference in the 2024 election, demonstrates either a blatant disregard of the Constitution or a demonstrable ignorance of it.
Take your pick.
Now, Dirty Jack wants to bastardize and rewrite the Sixth Amendment’s “Speedy Trial” Clause, to assign a new meaning exactly opposite of Constitutional intent.
He demands, get this, a “speedy trial” on behalf of the government and wants a speedy trial by January 2, 2024, in his bogus “January 6” case. This would, of course, force Trump to sit in a Washington, DC, courtroom, nonstop, in the two weeks preceding the Iowa caucuses.
Lavishing lipstick all over a pig in a bloviated motion with flowery language and filed with the court in the District of Columbia, Dirty Jack writes,
“A January 2, 2024, trial date represents an appropriately speedy trial in the public interest and in the interests of justice, while affording the defendant time to prepare his defense and raise pre-trial legal issues with the Court.”
First, Jack, the Sixth Amendment does not give the government the right to a speedy trial. It is the accused who has the right to a speedy trial, if and only if, the accused demands a speedy trial.
Consider the Sixth Amendment’s exact wording:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial….
Note the phrase, “the accused.”
Note also, zero language about a “speedy trial” being in “the public interest,” or in “the interests of justice,” which were flowery, made-up phrases sprinkled into Smith’s “motion for a speedy trial.”
All this represents more political garbage from Smith, invented from thin air, implying, falsely, that his hot-air pontifications embrace some sort of Constitutional legitimacy.
Smith and other big government worshipers might wish the Bill of Rights was written for the government. But the Sixth Amendment was written for the people, to protect the people against abusive government powers, against power-hungry government agents like Jack Smith. Not the other way around.
Remember Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg? “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” – not “of the government, by the government, and for the government.”
There may be times that an accused may not wish for a speedy trial, for many reasons, such as witness availability.
Suppose, for example, that a crucial defense witness is in a coma, or perhaps a defense witness simply cannot yet be found. In those, the defense may wish to delay a trial, and not necessarily demand a speedy trial, because sometimes, it takes a while to build the defense’s case, and a speedy trial might now always protect all the due process rights afforded by the Constitution to an accused.
At other times, however, a defendant may wish to demand a speedy trial.
But ultimately, this is the defendant’s right, Jack. Not the government’s.
In this case, the dual-fanged motives in the government demanding a “speedy trial” are obvious.
The first motive is to tie down the giant, that is Trump, who towers above them all. Bogus criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits are designed to do just this. In their minds, if they can tie him down, Trump can do them no harm in his quest to retake the presidency.
The second poisonous fang in the government “demanding” a “speedy trial,” is designed to quickly get Trump a felony conviction, before the election.
The felony, which Smith will get in D.C, will open up a chocolate box of lawfare possibilities against Trump, all at their bloodthirsty fingerprints.
Several major states, even red states, including Texas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, and West Virginia, have statutes on the books that prohibit felons from appearing on the ballots in those states.
Now, to be clear, the Constitution does not prohibit a citizen with a felony conviction, even a felony conviction from a political prosecution, from serving as President. But this won’t stop the Democrats from trying to knock Trump off the ballot in strategically-targeted states that Trump needs to win. Once Jack Smith gets his Kangaroo Court conviction in D.C, expect the likes of Mark Elias and other Democrat lawyers to fan out among the states, and to selectively file federal lawsuits, hoping for Democratic-appointed federal judges to declare that Trump cannot appear on the ballot in those states.
If even one Democrat judge sides with the Democrats to remove Trump from the ballot, say in Texas, for example, in a tight election where the country is half blue already, unless the Supreme Court intervenes quickly, that would tip the election back to the Democrats. The Democrats know that SCOTUS showed no spine in stepping in to stop rampant election fraud in 2020.
Smith knows that if he can get Trump to trial in D.C., he’s guaranteed a conviction. There’s as much a chance of Trump being acquitted by a D.C. jury as a snowflake surviving in a blast furnace.
If anyone thinks any conservative stands a chance of acquittal in D.C, ask Steve Bannon, the first person to be jailed in over sixty years for “Contempt of Congress.” They nailed Bannon, while Democrat operatives like Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, and deep state Republican Washingtonian Bill Barr (who turned a blind eye to election cheating in 2020 and wrote an anti-Trump book and has since jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon), all got passes from prosecution.
Bannon, unlike others found in contempt but not prosecuted, went further than the others by dropping an executive privilege claim, based on a letter from President Trump that the President would not ask him to assert the privilege.  Bannon then offered to testify before Congress – unlike the others, and they still prosecuted him, put him before a D.C. jury, and got a conviction.
So much for the once-honored concept of equal justice under the law.
Still think a conservative, or anyone who questions the system can get a fair trial in D.C? Consider the so-called January 6 cases.
Of about 1,000 January 6th defendants as of March 23, 2023,  608 had either been tried or pleaded guilty. Of that number, only one defendant, that is, one out of a thousand to date, has been totally acquitted.
Let that sink in. One, in a thousand.
What fool would think Trump can get a fair trial in the Democrat-infested D.C?
In Jonathan Swift’s famed Gulliver’s Travels, the little midgets who tied down the giant with a thousand ropes, and shot a thousand little arrows while the giant slept, were called Lilliputians.
These Lilliputians were men six inches tall, saturated with all the pretension and self-importance of full-sized men. They were mean and nasty, vicious, morally corrupt, hypocritical and deceitful, jealous and envious, filled with greed and ingratitude.
Dirty Jack Smith and his merry band of Democrat prosecutors, and his philosophical allies like Alvin Bragg, Fannie Smith, and Merrick Garland, are modern-day Lilliputians — nasty, vicious, morally corrupt, and hypocritical little midgets — trying to tie down a generational giant, Donald Trump, to keep him from political power.
They attack the constitutional rights of free speech, to petition the government for redress of grievances, and attack the Fourth Amendment by lying to judges to obtain warrants and executing search warrants that defy the Constitution. They withhold exonerating information from grand juries.  They attack the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel by prosecuting and sanctioning Trump’s lawyers. 
But like the nasty midgets from Gulliver’s Travels, they risk that the giant will eventually snap the ropes, and rise again.
They may rue the day they tried destroying the Constitution for their own self-aggrandizement.
They may find themselves needing the very constitutional protections they are now trying to destroy.
 Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial (See Amendment VI, page 13/19).