Special Counsel Jack Smith has set court dates for his various charges against President Trump — and what a coincidence — they all coincide with key dates during the U.S. election.

According to GatewayPundit:

Special Counsel Jack Smith requested a January 2 trial date for President Trump's charges related to the January 6 case in Washington DC.

Last Tuesday Trump was hit with 4 counts in Jack Smith's January 6 case: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

"The Government proposes that trial begin on January 2, 2024, and estimates that its case in chief will take no longer than four to six weeks," according to a court filing on Thursday.

Jack Smith wants Trump convicted by Super Tuesday in March.

According to CNN:

Smith's push for a swift trial timetable was based on a set of legal criteria he laid out, but which CNN legal commentator Elie Honig called "extraordinarily aggressive." It would give Trump's team less than five months to get ready for trial, and to sift through potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, based on a schedule for jury selection in December, before the holiday season.

Tim Parlatore, a former Trump attorney, told CNN Thursday that the strongest defense argument would be that there was no way it could be ready in just a few months, noting that any sense that it was pushed to go to trial prematurely could factor into any post-trial appeals.

Ahhh.  Fairness.  But this is not about fairness to the defendant.  This is about swinging the election.

He tried earlier to get this so-called "speedy trial" done through his presidential records charges, where he sought a December trial date, and was granted a May 20 one, well into the election season.

So now he's gotten even by moving his January 6 charges even more strategically through the court dockets, even though legal experts have noted that they are pretty flimsy, meaning he could theoretically present a stronger case if he made time to build it.

But that's not the idea here.

Smith's strategy is clear enough in a Democrat operative's statement to left-wing Salon:

"Jack Smith is a master chess player," Norm Eisen, who served as Democratic counsel during Trump's first impeachment, told CNN. "He's been doing this for a very long time. So now with the target letter in the 2020 election interference case, in case... that trial slips, what does Jack Smith do? He's going to file in D.C., a very favorable bench, great jury pool for him. Says, fine, Judge Cannon, you want to move that trial, we'll just slide in the 2020 election interference trial and we'll do that before the election."

In other words, his idea is to time each court date with a vital primary date in the election in order to reduce President Trump's chances of winning the GOP primary.  If that doesn't work, then the plan is to get a trial and a swift conviction ahead of Election Day to ensure that Trump can't win the presidency.

Is this about justice?  Or swinging the election?  Even if he fails to win his case, he cynically knows he can swing the election just by the charges.

There's also the speedy calendar, which he has insisted is all about the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial, which is even more laughable, given that these charges are being brought two and a half years after the alleged "crime" even though all the information was out there, and the fact that previous special counsels sent to Get Trump, such as Robert Mueller, took years and years and years to get finished, having strategically decided to drag the case out for almost the duration of Trump's presidency to drag it down, having found nothing.

This isn't the only evidence of a politicized prosecution here, either.

There is also the venue, Washington, D.C., which couldn't even secure a conviction for a Washington swamp lawyer who openly lied to the FBI about his involvement in Hillary Clinton's campaign.  Lawyer Andrew Sussmann got off scot-free, courtesy of the jury, with one juror explaining to the Washington Post that "everyone pretty much saw it the same way."  In ordinary circles, that's called groupthink.  In a separate case, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith got off with the lightest of wrist slaps after falsifying documents to secure illegal surveillance against President Trump — and then got his legal standing at the bar as an upright lawyer fully restored, once again by D.C. swampers.  That tells us a lot about what the jury pools are like in Washington, D.C., which voted 92% against President Trump in the 2020 election, and why Smith is opposed to moving the venue from Washington.  He's effectively captured the most anti-Trump potential jury in the country and one with a massive conflict of interest, given that Trump has vowed to shut down the swamp in his campaign, which of course is their rice bowl.

Anybody think he's going to get a fair trial in that city?  Their livings are on the line.  Seems Smith needs the case to happen in that city, though, because almost other venue in the country would laugh out of the courtroom his flimsy thrown spaghetti bowl of charges (to see if something sticks).  There's zero doubt that a jury would do anything but vote their election choices in this trial, which is to say, convict Trump of whatever Smith can throw at him.

The judge, too, is flamingly biased — she made this whopper of a statement about Washington juries, with zero evidence to back it: 

In one recent Jan. 6 case, a D.C. judge wrote that "Defendant's assumptions concerning party affiliation in the District are not an appropriate basis for changing venue. Jurors' political leanings are not, by themselves, evidence that those jurors cannot fairly and impartially consider the evidence presented and apply the law as instructed by the court."

That judge was Chutkan, who will preside over Trump's case.

She's trying to tell us we are unfamiliar with Nevertrumps and Trump-deranged Democrats and their idea of "fairness" to Trump?  Perhaps she could show us their social media accounts.

She, of course, is a massively biased jurist, a full-on Trump hating swamp leftist herself, who sentenced January 6 defendants to longer terms than even prosecutors requested, based on the Democrat talking point of the "threat to democracy." 

She's just the judge Smith sought.

If this case is so strong, though, and could win anywhere, why is Smith clinging to such a stacked venue?

We have the strategic court dates, we have the rigged venue, we have the biased judge, and we have the oddly speedy trial schedule, and now we have a court calendar exquisitely timed to coincide with the primary and electoral calendar. 

They see nothing amiss here, just the wheels of justice grinding on as if nobody wants to see a particular political outcome.

They aren't even trying to hide it.  No restraint, no deference to appearances of conflict of interest, just the justification of "hain't I got the power?"

How stupid do they think the voters are?

Image: Screen shot from MSNBC video via YouTube.