[[link removed]]

JACK SMITH THROWS IN THE TOWEL ON PROSECUTION OF TRUMP  
[[link removed]]


 

Julia Conley
November 25, 2024
Common Dreams
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The president-elect's "ability to escape prosecution does not
retroactively validate his illegal, unconstitutional and
democracy-destroying activities," said one critic. _

Special Counsel Jack Smith announces indictment of former President
Donald Trump during a press conference on August 1, 2023 in
Washington, D.C., Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images

 

Special Counsel Jack Smith's announcement on Monday that he was
dropping his case regarding President-elect Donald Trump's alleged
handling of classified documents and election subversion was not
unexpected, as U.S. Justice Department policy dictates that a sitting
president can't be prosecuted while in office.

But government watchdogs said the developing was no less "troubling,"
[[link removed]]
and vowed that Trump must ultimately face accountability.

"At least for now, Trump may escape justice for his role in trying to
overturn the 2020 election, fomenting the January 6 insurrection, and
improperly handling classified documents," said
[[link removed]]
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen
[[link removed]]. "But his ability to
escape prosecution does not retroactively validate his illegal,
unconstitutional and democracy-destroying activities. They were
heinous and unconscionable acts that literally cost lives and
threatened the peaceful transfer of power."

"If not the courts, history will judge them appropriately," said
Gilbert.

In his motion to dismiss the case, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, Smith wrote that "the government's
position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed.
But the circumstances have."

" Donald Trump [[link removed]] aims
not just to excuse but to normalize all this behavior. Permitting him
to succeed would enable a slide into authoritarianism. The American
people must not let that happen."

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote
[[link removed]]
in his Substack newsletter that regardless of DOJ policy, the filing
was "a grave mistake," because Smith did not specify that the
prosecution of Trump would be restarted after the president-elect
leaves office.

"Smith says he had no choice," wrote Reich. "But he _did _have a
choice. He could have asked the courts to put the cases on hold until
Trump is no longer president... To be sure, Smith's requests were for
dismissals 'without prejudice,' which technically leaves open the
possibility that charges could be refiled after Trump leaves office.
But refiling charges is vastly more cumbersome than simply ending a
stay."

While Smith left the door open to once again bring charges against
Trump in 2029, he "should have put the responsibility for avoiding the
rule of law squarely on Trump," wrote Reich.

Legal analyst Barb McQuade added
[[link removed]] that Smith's
tactic leaves the possibility that "there may be no appetite" to
refile charges regarding eight-year-old allegations after Trump leaves
office.

At_ Slate_, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wrote
[[link removed]]that
Attorney General Merrick Garland's "institutionalist instincts
paralyzed the Justice Department for nearly two years, giving Trump a
chance to run out the clock by the time Smith finally indicted him."

The attorney general is "partly at fault for waiting so long to
commence the investigation into Jan. 6," they wrote, while right-wing
federal Judge Aileen Cannon "is guilty of sabotaging" the case
regarding Trump's retention of classified documents after he left
office in 2021, which Cannon dismissed
[[link removed]]
in July, claiming Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the
Constitution.

"In a simplistic sense, the voting public also bears culpability for
putting Trump back in the Oval Office despite his egregious attempts
to steal the previous election. But that victory could not have
happened without the Supreme Court, which essentially nullified the
constitutional bar against insurrectionists returning to office, then
awarded Trump sweeping immunity in Smith's Jan. 6 case. The court's
immunity decision guaranteed that the former president would not face
trial before the election, which in turn prevented the public from
hearing the full range of evidence against him."

Gilbert emphasized that "at Public Citizen we believe that no one
should be above the law, that criminality by the powerful must be
punished, and that attempting to overturn the nation's election and
fomenting political violence should be harshly sanctioned."

"Donald Trump aims not just to excuse but to normalize all this
behavior," said Gilbert. "Permitting him to succeed would enable a
slide into authoritarianism. The American people must not let that
happen."

===

Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

* January 6 Insurrection; Donald Trump; US Department of Justice;
Jack Smith
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]