I am responding to Rich Lowry’s column in the May 8 P-J entitled, “No, Don’t Rush The Trump J6 Case”. My question is, why not?

Lowry suggests that the DOJ “could have appointed Jack Smith much sooner” and “Smith could have indicted Trump much faster” and, therefore, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) could have raised its questions sooner. I agree with Lowry. Merrick Garland failed in his duties since most of the legal issues of the indictment were previously presented by the “J6 Committee” by Jan 1, 2021.

The problems with Lowry’s point are that Trump 1) has not pursued his publicly-claimed innocence in either of the federal indictments, or even the Georgia indictment, and Trump’s practice has been to delay trials in all cases, 2) SCOTUS asked questions that have almost nothing to do with the J6 case, primarily future hypothetical cases – Lowry says so, 3) neither party to the case has asked SCOTUS “to create a precedent that will affect all presidents going forward” – SCOTUS chose to do so.

There has been no issue of “immunity” with previous presidents in the history of the United States. Transferring power, the issue at hand, is simple, not complex as Lowry indicated, which, as defined by Trump’s lawyers, is whether Trump had “broad immunity” – to act king-like – to do as he pleased. Lowry’s allegation that SCOTUS has defined “weighty” issues is misplaced because SCOTUS combined the possible, future actions of presidents with the, limited, current allegations against Trump included in the indictment.

It seems fair for the public to fully know who to vote for as president in November 2024. Three criminal cases are unlikely to be scheduled for trial by November 2024. The federal “documents case” has been indefinitely sidelined by Eileen Cannon, the Georgia “RICO” case has been sidelined indefinitely by unrelated personal issues of the DA, the federal “J6” case has been indefinitely sidelined by SCOTUS’ choice of delay. None of those delays has a legal basis. In other words, they’re bogus. All Smith is doing is responding to Trump’s delaying tactics.

The biggest problem with Lowry’s column is the possibility that Trump could win the 2024 election and the federal indictment (including the J6 case) will , not may, disappear. That’s Trump’s real long-term goal. Lowry is the person being “short-sighted”. To me, it’s better to have all the reasons to vote for/against the candidates – legal and otherwise.

Paul L. Demler is a Jamestown resident.