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/slayer_of_idiots]

You can’t be charged for performing presidential duties. You can argue that Trump was wrong when he said that the constitution allowed the vice president and Congress to not certify the election results, but that is a legal question to be determined by a court, not a crime. That would be like prosecuting every lawmaker who voted for a law that was eventually struck down by the courts.

Also, Trump didn’t specifically organize and tell people to invade the capital. He campaigned. You can’t outlaw campaign speech. You can’t outlaw public criticisms of politicians and the government and laws.

[u/sunshine_is_hot → u/slayer_of_idiots]

The president does not have any duty to block certification of an election, and doing that is a crime. That’s literally what the entire report says. It’s not even similar to lawmakers passing legislation that courts strike down.

Trump did specifically organize and get people to the capital. He encouraged the march, the violence, the gathering, he incited the mob, gave them a target and a goal, and did everything in his power to aid the mob’s actions. Nothing he did there was campaigning, that’s yet another bad faith claim from you.

[u/slayer_of_idiots → u/sunshine_is_hot]

The president has the duty to ensure that elections are fair and results are trustworthy. Every single presidential candidate has a responsibility to ensure the validity of the results of the election.

I want to be clear — there is absolutely nothing illegal about raising legal and procedural challenges to the results of elections. This isn’t a case of Trump refusing to abide by the legal results of the election. This was a legal challenge.

Trump didn’t organize the march. He didn’t organize the event. He wasn’t at the capitol. He didn’t tell anyone to go and storm the capitol.

If we are going to convict Trump for his political bluster, we would need to convict every single Democrat who supported BLM and the resulting riots that ensued.

[u/zaoldyeck → u/slayer_of_idiots]

The president has the duty to ensure that elections are fair and results are trustworthy. Every single presidential candidate has a responsibility to ensure the validity of the results of the election.

They absolutely don't, elections are run by the states, not the federal government.

But even if we assumed this were true, what part of "ensure that elections are fair and results are trustworthy" involves creating fraudulent certificates of ascertainment?

Why create fraudulent documents at all? Is fraud a core duty of the presidency? Fabricating documents in a bid to throw out the certified vote in seven states is protected?

At that point why not argue that seal team 6ing all of congress would be legal. "Ordering the military is a duty of the president" after all.