Forbes: Here's why Trump's claims about the "60 day rule" are false.

[pnwmom]

“The DOJ ‘rule,’ which is really just a voluntary guideline and not a legal requirement, does not apply to a case that is already indicted and public,” former federal prosecutor and George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason tweeted Tuesday. “And with a Nov[ember] election, when it does apply, the cutoff is roughly Labor Day. Not there yet.”

Trump’s federal case for trying to overturn the 2020 election is now moving forward in federal court, though it won’t be going to trial anytime soon. Prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers will file reports by Friday laying out how they think the case should move forward from here, and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has scheduled a hearing for September 5 on how the case should proceed. It’s likely Trump’s lawyers will try to dismiss the charges against him outlined in the updated indictment, which will take a while to litigate before the case can go to trial—and could end up before the Supreme Court again.

Before being discussed in connection with Trump, the 60-day rule gained attention in 2016 because of the federal investigation into then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. James Comey, who led the FBI at the time, was viewed as violating the 60-day rule when he notified lawmakers in October 2016 that investigators were examining emails that “appear pertinent” to its investigation, after discovering them as part of a separate probe into former congressman Anthony Weiner. Comey defended his actions by claiming he felt “an obligation” to inform lawmakers “testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed,” also claiming “it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.” In a 2018 inspector general report on the controversy, former DOJ officials said there isn’t a “magic” 60- or 90-day rule, but “the closer you get to the election the more fraught it is,” and disclosed that the DOJ had decided against formally codifying the 60-day rule before the 2016 election, claiming that would be “unworkable.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/08/28/trump-claims-jack-smith-couldnt-file-updated-indictment-before-election-heres-why-thats-false/

[LauraInLA]

1. Kick

[Arne]

2. Here's a rule, and it's actually clear in the constitution.

An insurrectionist cannot run for office.
Much less win the presidency.

[Think. Again.]

4. 🏆

[Mark.b2]

3. St. Comey broke that precendence years ago. nt

[pecosbob]

5. Forbes has a Youtube channel that shows up on my feed regularly...chock full of lies and propaganda of the worst sort.

[pnwmom]

8. If that's true then you should share this piece in your encounters with MAGA people

who are repeating Trump's lies about the 60 day non-rule.

[Think. Again.]

6. Here's a rule..

The doj should not engage in election intereference by including anything election-related, such as election schedules, in their law enforcement decision making.

[malaise]

7. Eff the CONvicted felon

Time’s up scoundrel

[duncang]

9. But....

All of these cases started way back. None of these were just brought up the are essentially the same case. Get out of jail free cards shouldn’t be passed out just because it’s close to the election.

[durablend]

10. Lock him up already

Tired of hearing his excuses