The Mathematics of Democrat ‘Justice’

Judge Tanya Chutkan of the D.C. Federal District Court has ruled that the trial there against Trump will begin March 4, 2024. Many have already commented on how badly that will impact candidate Trump subjectively, given the electoral calendar's Super Tuesday primaries the next day. Attention should also be directed to how Democrat "justice" is being imposed on defendant Trump in objective terms.

Let's review the math.

When March 4 rolls around, the prosecution will have had about 38 months to prepare its case since the events of January 6, 2021. The Trump defense team will have had a little over six months since indictment. That is a disparity of over six to one, advantage offense.

There is more. Time alone is not the only factor affecting the opportunity for adequate trial preparation. There is also the matter of resources. Here the government enjoys a huge advantage. No matter how much in the way of resources candidate Trump is forced to divert from his campaign to the defense of defendant Trump, the government's resources in terms of manpower and funding will still be orders of magnitude greater. Even if we consider only one order of magnitude in the calculus, that converts to a discrepancy in resource months to over sixty to one favoring Democrat "justice."

Then there is the fact of prior preparation. The prosecution has already had a major portion of its pre-trial discovery accomplished in terms of witness interviews, document gathering, and video analysis (and splicing) by the unprecedented January 6 Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Selected Committee. Since that committee repeatedly denied Republicans due process, there was no opportunity for Trump or his supporters to develop any evidence. In terms of that extensive prior trial prep, therefore, the advantage to the Democrat prosecution is literally infinite.

But wait -- what about focus? All the time, resources and prep are attenuated in effectiveness if one side or the other has a serious disadvantage in distractions. The D.C. offense can concentrate solely on that trial. Meanwhile defendant Trump has to pay attention to: 1) 87 other counts brought against him by Democrats in three other courts, and 2) all the while trying to campaign. Leaving the campaigning to one side and using the count of counts as a proxy for distraction results in a 91 to 4 ratio, or over 22 to 1 against Trump.

The Trump lawyers asked for a trial date of April, 2026. The prosecution asked for January, 2024. That is a difference of 27 months. By choosing March 4 next year, the trial judge "split the difference" in a revealing way, giving the offense 25 of the 27, versus two for the defense, or a ratio of over twelve to one.

At the time of the ruling, the government already had 32 months to prepare. With none of the advantages of resources and the Pelosi-aided selected trial prep, the Trump team asked for 31 months. Even so, in order to wedge the trial into a crucial phase of the 2024 campaign, the trial judge shortened the defense request from 31 down to eight months, a decrease to some 25 percent of the time that the government had already had.

Yet to be determined is how the trial judge will rule on future motions. Hopefully her inauspicious start will not be indicative of her future decisions, but it may well be. We the People should pay close attention to this aspect of Democrat "justice" as it unfolds. Particular concern should be directed to how she reacts when defense discovery requests are either stonewalled or slow-walked by the prosecution, whatever the excuses offered may be. Against such cynical rationales as "public safety," "relevance," "burdensomeness," or "National Security" must be placed the mathematically objective fact that every day of delay shortens the already narrow window ordered by the court for the defense to prepare in a very complex case.

Then there is the jury pool. The electorate in D.C voted about 90 percent against Trump, so in terms of jury selection, the math is nine to one against the defendant.

So far, the math discussed above relates to factors imposed by the weaponized government. There is also the contribution of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), primarily the media. If the past is any guide to what we are likely to witness, the bias stacked against defendant (and candidate) Trump will be at least a ten to one.

To summarize just these objective factors among the many that could be considered, here is what is already unfolding in terms of offensive versus defensive mathematical advantage:

1) as to time, over 6 to one.

2) as to resource months, over 60 to one.

3) as to prior preparation, literally infinite.

4) as to focus, over 22 to one.

5) as to the trial judge's start date ruling, a "split the difference" of over 12 to one.

6) as to future trial judge orders, to be determined.

7) as to jury pool, 9 to one.

8) as to NGO involvement, at least 10 to one.

There is a silver lining in these types of objective discrepancies, however, The American People will be able to see just how capable a man Trump truly is. As he energetically masters so many Democratically-hurled "balls in the air" all at once, We the People will be able to draw a stark subjective contrast: just how competent would a candidate/defendant Biden be if faced with the same sort of circumstances?

When Judge Chutkan made her trial date ruling, she piously intoned: "My primary concern here is the interest of justice." It would have been more accurate for her to have cited her mathematically revealed concern for "Democrat jJustice'."

Hopefully the Trump defense team can succeed in getting the March 4 trial date moved back by an interlocutory appeal. If they do not, however, envision what we will behold in March as Citizen Trump stands in the dock of the D.C. Court of Public Safety. In symbolic terms he will resemble the famous statue of Nathan Hale about to be hanged. For there he will stand, facing Democrat "justice," figuratively with shackled feet, hands tied behind his back and, in all probability unlike Hale, with at least one gag order stuffed in his mouth. 

The author is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale, was a National Foundation Fellow at MIT, graduated in the same Yale Law School class as Bill and Hillary Clinton, and clerked after graduation for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Image: PxFuel

If you experience technical problems, please write to