The era of the Republic may be drawing to a close, as recent events unfold dramatically.
Today, Special Counsel Jack Smith took the significant step of voluntarily moving to dismiss both criminal cases against Donald Trump. This decision has been influenced by our seemingly ineffective Supreme Court and a decades-old precedent that was created to ease Richard Nixon‘s departure from the presidency without significant turmoil. As a result, Trump has found a way to evade the repercussions of what many consider an attempted coup, successfully securing his position by leveraging his political power.
Similar to the Mueller Investigation, the Justice Department’s interpretation of immunity for a sitting president has prevented the prosecution of an unrepentant individual accused of serious crimes. The Department has maintained its long-standing stance that the United States Constitution prohibits federal indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. In his motion to dismiss the election interference case in Washington D.C., Smith emphasized that this prohibition is absolute and does not depend on the severity of the crimes or the strength of the evidence presented by the government.
In his analysis, Smith referenced consultations with the Office of Legal Counsel, concluding that while the Constitution mandates dismissal in this situation, it does not require a dismissal that is final or with prejudice. This opens the door for potential prosecution of Trump should he leave office in the future, which remains uncertain.
In the Eleventh Circuit, Smith also filed to dismiss the appeal regarding Judge Aileen Cannon‘s ruling on the stolen documents case, but this applies only to Trump himself. The legal proceedings concerning the other two defendants will continue, as they do not benefit from the same principle of temporary immunity that protects Trump.
To dismiss the case against Trump while continuing with the others could pose a challenge, as it would allow Cannon’s questionable assertion that special counsels are illegal to remain unchallenged. This situation may create a dilemma for Pam Bondi, who could face the task of appointing Special Counsel Matt Gaetz to investigate Jack Smith, all while contending with the absurdity of the legal inconsistencies in a potential second Trump administration.
Meanwhile, the dismissal of these criminal cases clears the path for Smith to finalize and release his required report. According to 28 CFR § 600.8(c), the Special Counsel is obligated to provide a confidential report to the Attorney General detailing the decisions made regarding prosecution or declination. Attorney General Merrick Garland has expressed his intention to make this report public, a move that is unlikely to be mirrored by AG Bondi if she takes over.
Despite this, those who are skeptical of the situation will argue that Smith should have remained in his position until January, pushing Trump to remove him from office. Regardless, the circumstances surrounding these developments will certainly provide engaging reading material as we navigate these turbulent times.
Liz Dye resides in Baltimore, where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.
For more current insights on litigation, regulations, financial services trends, and deals, subscribe to Finance Docket, a collaborative effort between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
