BREAKING: Jack Smith Officially Concedes, Files Motion To Dismiss Trump Charges

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion to dismiss the federal criminal case against President-elect Donald J. Trump. The DOJ’s decision hinges on longstanding interpretations of the Constitution that bar the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. Trump, who defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the November 5 election, is slated to be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025.

Special Counsel Jack Smith submitted the motion to dismiss the case on Monday, stating that while the prosecution remains sound, the Constitution mandates temporary immunity for a sitting president. “The Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President,” the filing reads. The motion seeks dismissal without prejudice, allowing for potential prosecution after Trump’s term ends.

The case, United States v. Donald J. Trump, stems from allegations that Trump interfered with the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. The initial indictment, returned in August 2023 by a Washington, D.C., grand jury, charged Trump with four felonies, including obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Legal complications mounted after the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in Trump v. United States that Trump was immune from prosecution for specific actions taken during his presidency. This led to a revised indictment that excluded conduct protected by the Court’s ruling but retained allegations related to his post-presidency actions.

Trump’s victory in the 2024 election created an unprecedented conflict between the rule of law and constitutional protections for the presidency. Smith’s motion acknowledges this tension, writing, “This sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests: on the one hand, the Constitution’s requirement that the President must not be unduly encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities… and on the other hand, the Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.”

To navigate this legal quagmire, the DOJ consulted with its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), whose opinions are binding within the Department. The OLC reaffirmed its 2000 opinion that criminal prosecution of a sitting president “impermissibly threatens the constitutional separation of powers” and imposes burdens that would prevent a president from carrying out his duties effectively.

The motion also defended the decision to dismiss without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of future prosecution: “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant. Consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice.”

Smith reiterated that the prosecution remains strong and supported by substantial evidence but emphasized that constitutional obligations take precedence. The motion draws heavily on two prior OLC opinions, from 1973 and 2000, which examined whether a sitting president could be prosecuted. Both opinions concluded that prosecution would unduly interfere with presidential responsibilities, posing insurmountable challenges such as imprisonment, stigma, and the burdens of mounting a defense.

Notably, the motion highlights the potential for delaying prosecution until Trump leaves office. Courts could address concerns about statutes of limitations through equitable tolling, ensuring that legal accountability remains possible after his term.

If granted, the DOJ’s motion would halt proceedings against Trump until he is no longer president. However, dismissal without prejudice means the case could be revived, subject to legal and political considerations at the time.

YOURS FREE: Claim Your ‘Trump Victory’ Coin NOW!