The setting of Trump’s DC trial for the spring of 2024 – conveniently scheduled one day before the Super Tuesday primaries – was undoubtedly the result of a shared interest between the Special Counsel and the presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan: to convict Donald Trump before the 2024 election. Moreover, given the 11+ million pages of documents involved in this case, the hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of video and audio, and the hundreds of witnesses, the accelerated trial date was a violation of Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, which includes the opportunity to prepare for trial. …

Judge Chutkan has yet to rule on the stay of the case. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hasn’t even begun to consider Trump’s immunity and Constitutional arguments.

But, evidencing his impatience with the standard legal process, and displaying his desire to prosecute Trump before the 2024 election, Special Counsel did something he admitted was “extraordinary.” He asked the Supreme Court to rule on the following issue[.].

[Interesting. Much of this is paywalled, but it seems to set up an argument that this plea to resolve the issue now is an attempt to (a) keep the March 4 trial date in place and (b) retain Chutkan as the judge. That hinges on Trump’s immunity claim as well as his constitutional challenge to the trial date being too early to allow for a proper defense. If that’s the case, then Smith is attempting to hack through *several* Gordian knots. And given the court’s agreement, perhaps Smith had the right idea. — Ed]