There are no rules when it comes to capturing the former president Donald Trump.

Democrats are willing to go to any lengths to achieve their objectives. When it comes to investigating Democratic political figures the scales always seem to tip in their favor.

It has affected the conservatives’ perception of Rule of Law.

Liberal media does not know how conservatives feel about the Justice Department and FBI’s conduct in the past few years.

All over the country, it was said that the Steele dossier is reliable and that the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. The opposite was true.

The FBI and DOJ’s highest officials used the Steele dossier repeatedly to obtain warrants for American citizens. They should have known better.

Special counsel Jack Smith indicted President Trump last week for allegedly conspiring with others to deny voters the constitutional right to vote and to prevent an orderly transfer power.

The indictment of Mr. Smith is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, it is a problem that the Republican former president of the United States is to be tried by the District of Columbia, which is overwhelmingly Democratic. This is an area where President Trump received less than 5% in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

As with every American, Donald Trump has the constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to have his case heard before an impartial jury. It is impossible to do this in a place where he’s vilified and hated by the majority.

This is the case where a politician deserves to be moved from one courtroom to another.

The Supreme Court ruled that a transfer of venue is warranted if “extraordinary local prejudice” will prevent a fair hearing (Skilling V. United States).

In Delaney V. United States, First Circuit held that under the Sixth Amendment a change of venue was required when congressional hearings created an hostile environment that prejudiced defendant.

I believe that President Trump’s situation meets both of these standards.

If the trial continues as it is, this will set a precedent that could be troubling for future officeholders of either party.

This will encourage prosecutors to bring weak cases to hostile jurisdictions to obtain a favorable legal verdict from a jury with similar political motivations and sympathies.

The Smith indictment raises issues of great political importance, and it is important that the prosecution shakes up the American legal and political system in a way that passes the “smell test”.

Simply put, the Sixth Amendment is not met by allowing this case in Washington, D.C.

There are also issues with the way Judge Tanya Chutkan presided over this case. I don’t question her character or professional abilities. I voted for her confirmation to the federal bench.

But Judge Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointment, was already involved in the sentencing of January 6th defendants, and in doing so has repeatedly shown that she has made up her mind about President Trump and what happened that day.

She gave harsher sentences than the prosecutors had requested. She also said that the defendants of January 6th “didn’t go to the United States Capitol because they love our country, but rather “went for one person”: President Trump.

These comments indicate that Judge Chutkan had already held President Trump accountable for the conduct of rioters on January 6, even before he entered her courtroom. The lawyers for President Trump may have grounds to argue she should be “disqualified”, under the statute of recusal.

This case must be handled by a fresh set of eyes.

Third, the indictment of Mr. Smith robs President Trump crucial defenses.

No “co-conspirator”, from the inner circle of President Trump, who challenged the elections and discussed legal theories to support these challenges with former president, was indicted.

The President is in a very difficult position. He relied on the same individuals to create his legal challenges, but they are now unindicted conspirators.

This legal cloud will prevent key witnesses who are crucial to President Trump’s defence from testifying because they will have to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Mr. Smith should have indicted them if he truly believed that the inner circle of President Trump included co-conspirators. It is clear that the prosecution’s goal in not charging them was to remove all of the major defense witnesses and flip those who President Trump relied on during the relevant period.

This legal maneuver will hinder President Trump’s defense and, in effect, deny him due process.

Fourth, we all know that you need to be sure you have a solid case before you charge an ex-president of the United States.

The case at hand does not meet this standard.

The prosecution did not charge President Trump for inciting a riot. Smith accused President Trump of conspiring to defraud United States.

In order to win this case, the prosecution will have to prove that President Trump was aware of his false statements regarding election interference.

Indictment states that President Trump was informed by the Pope himself that some of the allegations about voter fraud were false. Even if Pope Francis told Mr. Smith that President Trump was wrong, the case against him is weak because the president believed the opposite.

The prosecutor can’t ignore the fact that, after years of wrong impeachments as well as the Crossfire Hurricane mess the President had legitimate reasons to think the system was rigged against him from the moment he decided he wanted to run for office.

Many of my Republican colleagues, both in the House and Senate, objected to the results in individual states. This is similar to what Democrats did in the past.

As I’ve said before, I do not agree with the legal theories proposed by the Trump Team.

The First Amendment, which provides greater protection to President Trump’s political speeches during that time period, should not be ignored.

The prosecutors did not acknowledge this and move on. Instead, they brought an indictment which stretched the law.

The election of 1876 is a good example.