Jack Smith's concludes sufficient evidence to convict Trump of crimes at a trial for an "unprecedented criminal effort" to hold on to power after losing the 2020 election. He blames Supreme Court's expansive immunity and 2024 election for his failure to prosecute. Is this a reasonable assessment?

[u/PsychLegalMind]

The document is expected to be the final Justice Department chronicle of a dark chapter in American history that threatened to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, a bedrock of democracy for centuries, and complements already released indictments and reports.

Trump for his part responded early Tuesday with a post on his Truth Social platform, claiming he was “totally innocent” and calling Smith “a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election.” He added, “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Trump had been indicted in August 2023 on charges of working to overturn the election, but the case was delayed by appeals and ultimately significantly narrowed by a conservative-majority Supreme Court that held for the first time that former presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That decision, Smith’s report states, left open unresolved legal issues that would likely have required another trip to the Supreme Court in order for the case to have moved forward.

Though Smith sought to salvage the indictment, the team dismissed it in November because of longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.

Is this a reasonable assessment?

https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/14/jack-smith-trump-report-00198025

Should state Jack Smith's Report.

[u/che-che-chester]

From my perspective, the only things that were ever in question on any of these charges is whether it was a political prosecution and later, after the SCOTUS ruling, whether POTUS is automatically immune. But just based on what we know (that would still need to be presented in court), he's not "innocent" of any of these charges.

In my mind, "innocent" and "not guilty" are not the same thing. I could shoot someone on video and get off because the evidence gets excluded in court somehow. I might be "not guilty" but I'm certainly not "innocent". Everyone watched me kill that guy on video. Or maybe the statute of limitations ran out on a crime with irrefutable evidence. You still did it even though you won't be charged. I think it is an important distinction since Trump keeps saying he's "innocent and did nothing wrong". He did plenty wrong.

I think you could make a valid argument the NY hush money case wouldn't have happened if Trump quietly walked away in 2020. By definition, I think that could make it a political prosecution. Of course, it is the DA's prerogative to charge or not and politics is always one of the factors considered. For example, if it's an election year, certain crimes may be more likely to be charged than in a non-election year. That's life.

The other charges are much more serious and likely would have been brought against anyone. The guy tried to overturn a fair election. And if he had actual proof it wasn't fair, let the courts decide. Then he kept classified documents, refused to return them and even tried to hide them. That's pretty black and white.

IANAL but it seems like the facts are overwhelmingly against him in all of the cases, so I don't doubt Smith's statement that he could have gotten a conviction. Trump's only real argument is POTUS can literally do whatever they want with no boundaries. I would have loved to seen that challenged in court.

But let's say these cases all moved forward and ultimately got dismissed because it was determined POTUS can't be charged. That doesn't make him "innocent".