Donald Trump WINS Again! Jack Smith Moves to Dismiss ANOTHER Case Against the President-Elect

Special Council Jack Smith -- the man behind several cases against President-Elect Donald Trump -- announced a couple of weeks ago he's stepping down. Understandably so, because all the cases against Trump (which were political in nature, and everyone knew that) began unraveling when Trump won reelection.

Now Smith has moved to dismiss the case against Trump in Washington, D.C.:

BREAKING: Jack Smith moves to dismiss the case against Trump in Washington. https://t.co/eYG5XB5EF5 pic.twitter.com/vjhui5KDcz
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 25, 2024

Part of the motion reads:

After careful consideration, the Department has determined that OLC’s prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind. Based on the Department’s interpretation of the Constitution, the Government moves for dismissal without prejudice of the superseding indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). The Government has conferred with defense counsel, who does not object to this motion.

Good riddance.

NOTABLE: Smith emphasizes that the case must be dismissed -- but not necessarily "with prejudice," meaning it could theoretically be brought back after Trump leaves office. Unlikely, but still a notable aside.https://t.co/eYG5XB5EF5 pic.twitter.com/4FpsY7h5KU
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 25, 2024

We noticed that, too.

More from Politico:

Special counsel Jack Smith has dropped his criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump for attempting to subvert the 2020 election, saying Justice Department policy prohibits him from continuing the case after Trump’s imminent inauguration.
In a six-page court filing on Monday, Smith said he consulted with Justice Department officials about whether an ongoing prosecution against a person elected president might continue. But he said officials concluded that a longstanding prohibition on prosecuting a sitting president would apply to Trump.
'That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,' Smith noted.

I can't believe Biden & Jack Smith are just dropping the charges against "Literally Hitler" because of an office memo rule that says they can't prosecute. It's not even a law! It's almost like this was just a political witch hunt.

Congrats to all of you who got played tho.😂
— 𝔻𝕠𝕔𝕥𝕠𝕣 𝔽𝕒𝕥𝕖 (@georg3) November 25, 2024

Yeah, congrats.

76 million jurors reached their verdict here. But weaponizing the justice system for political profit carries a high price.

And now Jack Smith (among others) will be obligated to pay it.
— Progressing California (@ProgressingCali) November 25, 2024

The blatant weaponization of the government was appalling to people.

The justice department under the leadership of Merrick Garland has been pathetic. The complete spineless capitulation in a time that called for unprecedented strength will be his legacy and he earned every bit of it https://t.co/q7FbbHk8Ff
— Ghost of Shamble Bangs (@Drea_got_banned) November 25, 2024

THANK GOD Garland wasn't appointed to SCOTUS.

The Department of Justice has concluded that prosecuting a president-elect is unconstitutional. https://t.co/2iA8s5wxpK
— Sunny (@sunnyright) November 25, 2024

Yup.

And here's a longer explanation from our own Aaron:

First off, the vast majority of voluntary motions to dismiss do it within one single page. So this is a blatantly political document where Jack Smith is going on and on and on in an effort to cover for his own failure.

Second, by going on and on he reveals a deep inconsistency.… https://t.co/ftGwbDWsis
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) November 25, 2024

The entire post reads:

Second, by going on and on he reveals a deep inconsistency. He says that presidential immunity means that he can’t even leave the president indicted and then suspend the case until after s/he leaves the presidency because even the possibility of prosecution after s/he leaves is a harm to the immunity of the president.
But then Smith actually has the nerve to ask for the dismissal to be without prejudice and floats the possibility of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Let me translate that from legalese into English. If a case is dismissed without prejudice it means that it can be filed again. And equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, refers to essentially extending the statute of limitations for one reason or another in this case because supposedly they couldn’t prosecute him while president.
So at one point Smith says that the possibility of prosecution can’t hang over the president’s head, and then at another point he makes sure to say that the possibility of prosecution should hang over Trump’s head.
What a perfect encapsulation of Jack Smith as a partisan attack dog. Don’t let anybody pretend that his decisions were independent. The metaphor I’ve been using is that putting Jack Smith in charge of investigating Trump is like putting a starving wolf in the same cage as a sheep. Yes, the wolf is making its own decisions, and you might be a little fuzzy on some of the details, but you know what going to happen.
Third, I could be wrong but it appears that the case will go forward, at least in theory, against all the other defendants.
Of course, I tend to believe that when Trump takes office, Jack Smith will be fired if he doesn’t quit, and Trump will order the indictments to be dismissed, with prejudice. He might even pardon his codefendants just to be sure.
And if I was him, I would attempt to self-pardon on my way out the door. There is some real question about whether or not a president can pardon himself or herself, but there isn’t much harm in trying. The American people clearly understand that Trump is the victim of lawfare. So they won’t be upset at him for trying to protect himself.

Well said.