The important words are included: Dismissed without prejudice, meaning the case could be refiled if possible down the track.
I’m sure Trump will do everything possible to ensure it won’t be, but Smith at least allows for the potential.
My speculation is that if Trump manages to survive his 4-year term, our legal system will be unrecognizable. It really doesn’t matter anymore.
Like the sentencing for the 32 felony convictions, I hope the thought of it hangs over his head for the next four years.
We have to accept that he is not going to prison. Either he dies in office or he’s going to be too senile to stand trial. I’m no lawyer, but I’d like to see him release all the evidence. Is there a way Smith can do this? If it means he can’t be tried in the future, so be it. At the very least, he needs to store the evidence and interview transcripts and recording where the brownshirts can’t get to them.
Yeah, I think since it became obvious the lengths this Supreme Court would go to protect him, we knew he wasn’t going to go to prison. Shameful beyond expression.
I am sure Jack Smith will do all he can to preserve the evidence for future review, and to the extent he is able to release any information, he will. But Jack Smith plays by the rules (as he must), and we’ve already seen what a handicap that is in our current circumstances.
I think a lot of us accepted that years ago. I’m quite sure I wasn’t alone “knowing” he’d never see the inside of a jail cell. The closest he really ever got was when Merchan couldn’t get him to shut up.
What’s the point of Smith doing this? Is there some reason to not to just ask the judge to delay the case until Trump’s out of office? Also, why now? Why not after the inauguration? ISTM this makes it harder for him to move forward if something changes in the next month.
And why did the motion to dismiss come from Smith, instead of Trump’s lawyers? I would’ve thought that Smith would go down fighting, kicking and screaming. Take the DOJ “guideline” that a sitting president can’t be indicted into court and make Trump’s team justify it.
Yes. If Trump doesn’t waive time for trial (and he won’t), Smith would have to try the case immediately. Even assuming he could get a jury/trial/conviction before January 20th, Trump would simply vacate the sentence after he was sworn in. That would be dispositive of these charges and Smith couldn’t preserve any chance of trying the case down the track.
So he can control his case. Trump’s lawyers would be delighted if the case remained preserved in its present incarnation so Trump’s new AG could make it go away for good.
The only possible silver lining I can see with this, is that it might point out some holes in our system that need to be filled.
If someday we get a legislature elected that has some kind of conscience and common sense, they might pass some laws making it clear that you can’t run for office solely to avoid legal consequences for your crimes, and that nobody is above the law.
It shouldn’t even be necessary for such a thing to be put into a statute, and that’s probably why nobody has bothered for over 200 years, but Trump has made it clear that such a thing is necessary.
I should’ve been clearer. When I said that something could change, I meant that something could change that would result in Trump not being president, but still fit for trial. I know it’s rather unlikely, but it just seemed like Smith would’ve waited until Trump was actually the sitting president.
That probably makes more sense. When I first saw that he wanted to dismiss the case, my initial thought was that Trump had dirt on Smith.
It’s not unusual for prosecutors to dismiss cases that are unlikely to go to trial for some reason for awhile. Nothing nefarious about it. At least in this instance, not on the prosecution’s side.
It may not be ‘all the evidence,’ but Smith is required to submit a report on his charging decision to Merrick Garland–who in the past has made such reports public.
But I wouldn’t like to bet that Garland will make this one public. I’m guessing he’ll offer some excuse, in the guise of being the pure and noble Follower of the Law. (In other words, I think there’s an excellent chance that Garland will be completely chickenshit with regard to Smith’s report.)
“Most.”
on page 6 smith states:
The Special
Counsel’s Office therefore sought OLC’s guidance on whether this case must be dismissed, or
whether the pending superseding indictment against the defendant could be held in abeyance until
he is no longer immune from prosecution. OLC concluded that its 2000 Opinion’s “categorical”
prohibition on the federal indictment of a sitting President—even if the case were held in
abeyance—applies to this situation, where a federal indictment was returned before the defendant
takes office. 2000 OLC Opinion at 254.1
Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the
Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. And although
the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the
immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice. Cf. id. at 255
(“immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the
President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment”).
this bit is where he states that dismissal is what is needed under the constitution ( a bit of a repeat from above):
Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the
Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. And although
the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the
immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice.
mr smith does make it clear that this is a temporary dismissal.
It’s the right course of action. I can’t see how Trump can undo a dismissal without prejudice (the ability to file it again later). It looks like Judge just Ordered it. I can’t imagine though that the statute of limitations would not have run by 2029? How long are they?
The Cannon/Documents case is trickier. It looks like Smith is stopping the appeal re Trump, which leaves Cannon’s unfortunate ruling and dismissal (with prejudice) in place. But there’s also two other Defendants and that appeal will go forward since there is no valid reason not to. But I imagine will be dismissed when Trump is President and Jack is let go.
While I don’t have your legal experience (well, I don’t have any legal experience!) my thoughts were along the same lines – keep the case alive by dismissing without prejudice, in effect, postponing it. Which makes it harder (though by no means impossible) for Trump to quash it with a pardon.
A secondary reason might be Smith trying to protect himself against retribution by the lawless fascist regime about to be established. I understand Smith was previously living in Europe. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ensconces himself there for the next four years anyway.
[
Yes. Inquiring minds want to know. For the documents case and the subversion case. I don’t believe that the law is concerned with the policy of DOJ. It’s just a policy, after all. Maybe the congresscritters should pass a law that says the the clock stops while the defendant is President.
Your weird dislike of Merrick Garland becomes weirder with every post. You have absolutely no basis to conclude as you have.
Your distaste for Garland is based, as I understand it, on the naïve, erroneous notion that this case would or could have been tried but for Garland’s “delay” in investigating Trump. This conclusion is simply not supported by facts and demonstrates your sad lack of understanding about the law and how it works.
The facts are: This case could have been tried ahead of the election had it not been for the unnecessary 7-month delay created by the Supreme Court on the immunity issue. Not only did they delay their ruling till the last possible moment, but they delayed any trial further by requiring the trial court (Chutkan) to rule on each count as regards its vulnerability to the new immunity rules. This guaranteed that the case would be appealed to the SCOTUS yet again for them to determine if Chutkan’s rulings got it right.
The case was never going to be tried ahead of the election unless the Supreme Court allowed it to. They didn’t. What do you imagine Garland could have done about that? Stop misplacing the blame.
To be clear: As soon as the Supreme Court issued their wackadoodle immunity ruling, it was painfully obvious this case was never going to go to trial ahead of the election.
Your lack of understanding about the law and how it works becomes more apparent with every post you make. If you are amused by how much your ignorance bothers me, please understand it’s because you are, in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, blaming the wrong villain. This hurts the country, and it makes me sick. I have no idea why you’re so invested in it.
I don’t think Smith has any illusions about what is going to happen to this case once Trump assumes office. Trump will make it go away one way or another. But at least Smith can preserve the integrity of and control over his evidence. That might become useful at a later date.
I’m pretty sure Smith also has no illusions about what will happen to him if he remains in the US while Trump is president. He will go abroad, and likely to a place that will protect him from extradition to the US.
Then all he has to watch out for is umbrellas and green tea.
So he’ll be ready to flee the country if necessary?
IANAL, AIUI, the statute of limitations means that indictments must be made within a particular time limit. As long as that happens, a prosecution can proceed. Even if there are long delays, the case can continue. There have been cases where an indicted person has absconded, and recaptured 20 years later, the case against them can proceed because it was started within the limit. Since Trump has already been indicted, it won’t be an issue.
I hope my understanding is correct.
To the best of my understanding, any country will almost certainly protect him from extradition, contrary to Steve Bannon’s blustery threats to pursue Trump’s enemies to the ends of the earth. Extradition is never automatic; it’s reviewed for merit by the country being served with the request, and is often denied for a variety of reasons. Trump will of course be pissed off and vindictive about it, but a country is either a sovereign nation or it isn’t.
Then I’m pretty sure The Netherlands will protect Jack Smith for the rest of his life if necessary. Unfortunately, it may be necessary.
I feel horrible for all the people who worked so hard on these cases, all for nothing.
And that includes Merrick Garland.