Special Counsel Seeks Dismissal of Trump’s Election Subversion Case

Special Counsel Jack Smith moved on Monday to dismiss the federal election subversion case against President-elect Donald Trump, effectively closing a long-standing prosecution. In his request, Smith stated, “After careful consideration, the department has determined that the Office of Legal Counsel’s prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president apply to this situation.”

This decision signals an anticlimactic end to what had become Trump’s most significant criminal case. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, appointed by Barack Obama, is anticipated to approve Smith’s dismissal motion, concluding the matter just before Trump’s inauguration.

As Special Counsel, Smith must compile a final report detailing the evidence collected during his investigation into Trump’s attempts to promote false claims of election fraud and disrupt the peaceful transition of power on January 6, 2021. Notably, he made no references to this report in his dismissal motion.

With Republicans poised to gain control of both the House and Senate in January, the impact of any forthcoming report is expected to diminish during Trump’s anticipated second term. Smith’s decision represents another legal triumph for Trump following his recent electoral victory.

On Friday, the judge overseeing Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan suspended sentencing indefinitely. Initially set for Tuesday, this was the only criminal case against Trump that proceeded to trial, ending with a 34-count conviction.

Additionally, on Monday, Smith sought to drop his appeal regarding charges in Trump’s classified documents case in Florida, where he had planned to argue at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals against claims of unconstitutional appointment.

Smith requested that the appeal be dismissed but maintained the right to proceed against two Trump associates who face obstruction charges. Trump’s campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, called this a “legal victory,” emphasizing the need to end what they describe as the political weaponization of the justice system.

In his six-page motion, Smith highlighted longstanding Justice Department policy which asserts that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. He underscored the severity of the four charges against Trump during the last 16 months, referencing discussions with the Office of Legal Counsel that reviewed relevant opinions issued in 1973 and 2000.

Both opinions established the precedent that while criminal charges against a sitting president may not be entirely precluded, such actions could violate the principle of separation of powers, according to Smith’s motion. Particularly in 1973, the Office ruled that such a prosecution would “unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the presidency.”

Prior to the election, Judge Chutkan was preparing to assess the arguments related to Trump’s presidential immunity, potentially leading to further appeals up to the Supreme Court. Trump’s electoral win, however, has now muddied the waters around the extent of presidential immunity, likely granting him greater leverage in the years to come.