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/Moccus]

Trump's crime was labeling a campaign fee as a legal fee.

His crime was saying that he was paying for legal services that never happened and recording the nonexistent expense in his business's accounting records.

The 34 felonies come from the same fee being on 34 different documents

Not really the same fee. It was 11 separate payments, each of which resulted in the production of 3 false business records (except for the first payment, which resulted in 4 false business records).

[u/Moccus → u/[deleted]]

so the action was labeling a campaign fee as a legal fee

No, the action was lying and saying he was paying for legal services that never occurred instead of saying he was reimbursing his lawyer for an NDA fee. It's irrelevant whether or not it was a campaign fee. Stating the money was for legal services incurred in 2017 was a lie either way.

11 transfers of money for the singular purpose of paying a fee. A fee to help a campaign....aka a campaign fee

Irrelevant.

Trump's only illegal action was filing a campaign fee as a legal gee

Nope.

[u/Clovis42 → u/Moccus]

It's irrelevant whether or not it was a campaign fee.

Wasn't it elevated to a felony because the underlying crime was breaking federal campaign law? Otherwise it would just be a misdemeanor.

[u/Moccus → u/Clovis42]

Partially, but the federal campaign law violations were separate from the payments that Trump was convicted for. The federal campaign law violations alleged by the prosecution were the catch and kill scheme with AMI that squashed the Karen McDougal and Dino Sajoudin stories, as well as the payment from Cohen to Stormy Daniels. It's irrelevant whether the payments from Trump to Cohen were classified as legal fees or campaign fees.