Democrats are always claiming to be advocates of "democracy" and the "rule of law," and they of course are absolutely committed to the opposite. They are fascists in Democrat clothing. 

We've already seen this in the transparent lawfare that they have been using against Donald Trump--trying to throw him off the ballot, bankrupting him, and of course plotting to put him in jail. 

Now we have two prominent Democrats crowing about how biased the jury pool in Washington D.C. is, and how this almost assures that Trump will be convicted in the ridiculous case being pursued by the special prosecutor. 

Now we have not only Marc Elias bragging about biased DC jury pools, but Lawrence O’Donnell too.

O’Donnell notes the odds Trump can get a Republican who would vote for him on his jury as being worse than winning any lottery.

Venue re the Jack Smith case must be changed from DC. https://t.co/dixyyIhwSR pic.twitter.com/fe5CsWZdmr

— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) March 5, 2024

It's obvious that neither of these guys is out there arguing that in order to get a fair trial with a jury pool that routinely votes over 90% Democrat and filled with people foaming at the mouth to "get" Donald Trump, the venue must be moved. 

What they are doing is gloating. Trump is screwed because we have the perfect venue to try him. 

Trump will get as fair a trial in D.C. as the French Aristocrats did in 1793 Paris. To the guillotine with you! 

Washington, D.C. is even less inclined to like Trump than New York City, where Trump was metaphorically beheaded already. 

 I am no lawyer, but I looked for a simplified explanation for how change of venue motions are adjudicated and found this simple explanation:

There are several possibly valid reasons why a judge might grant a Motion for Change of Venue. For example:

1. Excessive pre-trial publicity. If details about your case have been widely publicized by the media, your attorney may effectively argue that it would be difficult to find unbiased jurors within your local area to afford you a fair trial.
2. Pre-biased jury pool. Publicity notwithstanding, if the jury pool is likely to be biased against you in any way (for example, if your case is race-related in a racially charged community, or if it is a death penalty case in a community that favors the death penalty), your attorney may move to change the venue to improve the jury pool in your favor.
3. Current venue violates procedure. If for any reason, clerical or otherwise, the case is being handled by the wrong court or a court with no jurisdiction, the venue may be changed to a more suitable court in a different locale.
4. Other factors in the “interest of justice.” This encompasses a wide range of other possible reasons to move the trial, ranging from availability of witnesses to saving expenses, or even on the grounds that the presiding judge may harbor a prejudice against the defendant.

As a layman and a citizen this makes sense. Absolutely nobody, including Marc Elias, one of the most experienced election law attorneys (and a real scumbag in my book), believes that Trump can get a fair trial in Washington, D.C.

Also, nobody believes that this isn't one of the reasons why the prosecution so desperately wants to keep the trial there, as opposed to, say, Miami, which is another plausible venue. 

This is all about "getting Trump," and everybody knows it. The difference between the Democrats and most of the rest of the country is that the Democrats absolutely, positively, and without any question are thrilled that they are in a position to go after Trump in the least fair way possible. 

It is the same principle as unilaterally and unconstitutionally throwing him off the ballot. Unless they are forced to comply with the rules of Justice they will subvert them at every turn. 

Ironically, Trump can use these jerks' arguments against the legitimacy of the prosecution, or at least the trial, in court.