Takeaways from Trump’s victories over special counsel Jack Smith

Even formally in front of special counsel Jack Smith Asks for criminal cases against Donald Trump to be dismissedIt was already guaranteed that the president-elect would never see a jury.

On Monday, Smith dropped both allegations against Trump of subverting the 2020 election and charges accusing Trump of mishandling classified documents.

The special prosecutor emphasized that his decision was not about the strength of his case against Trump, but that his reasoning was based on the Justice Department’s long-standing belief that the Constitution prohibits prosecutions against sitting presidents.

Even if prosecutors believe they can save life-support cases until Trump’s second presidency, the president-elect has already indicated he plans to fire Smith and his team; this was an oath that violated the usual norms for a special counsel investigation. .

Trump’s re-election this month was the straw that broke the camel’s back as it was crushed by slow trials and new legal arguments. Smith’s filings suggest he may reintroduce the accusations, but Trump may seek to eliminate that possibility by pardoning him in an unprecedented move.

Also looming as Trump’s second term approaches is the Republican’s promises to go after those who judge him; This oath was echoed by his election as attorney general.

Here are the takeaways from Smith’s move to ask for the cases to be dismissed and how their investigation got to this point:

Trump’s election and revenge promises made this day inevitable

Trump’s re-election earlier this month brought an early end to the federal criminal cases.

The former president had promised during his campaign to fire Smith if voters returned him to the White House; This was a move that contrasted with the way other presidents had dealt with special advisors.

“Oh, that’s easy. I’d fire him in two seconds,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in October, when asked if he would “pardon himself” or “fire Jack Smith” if re-elected.

Ultimately, however, Trump did not need to fire the special counsel to resolve the two cases. He was already taking advantage of a legal delay strategy that ensured no hearings were held before Election Day, which ultimately forced Smith’s hand.

Just days after Trump’s re-election, the special counsel asked the judge overseeing the D.C. case to pause filing deadlines on the matter so his team could consider how to move forward with the unprecedented investigation. About three weeks after Election Day, he filed his petitions with courts in D.C. and Florida.

Meanwhile, the president-elect has repeatedly vowed to take political revenge against Smith and others he believes unfairly pursued him during his four years out of office. His pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi, appears poised to be a loyal foot soldier in those efforts.

Bondi, who was Florida’s attorney general for a while, said in a television program in August 2023, “The Department of Justice, the prosecutors, the bad ones will be prosecuted.”

“The investigators will be investigated. Because the deep state was hiding in the shadows during the last term of President Trump. But now they are under the spotlight and they can all be investigated,” he added.

What will we learn next?

Smith plans to release a final report on his investigations into Trump, as required by law, before Trump takes the oath of office next year, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is expected to make this public, as he has with past special counsel reports.

But it’s unclear how much new information will be included, especially in the election subversion case, where Smith recently filed hundreds of pages of legal arguments and evidence collected for that case.

The Supreme Court played an important role

If part of what happened was that Smith ran out of time to pursue the case against Trump, then the six-judge conservative majority in the Supreme Court It played an important role in slowing things down.

In a highly anticipated 6-3 decision handed down in July, the high court granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions, limiting the special counsel’s ability to move forward. Some of Trump’s critics were criticized the decision itselfbut others faulted the court for the time it took to deliver.

It was clear that many conservative justices viewed the ruling not as a gift to Trump but as a way to thwart spiraling and potentially politically motivated investigations. Although the court’s decision may ultimately achieve this goal, it is widely seen as a removal of control over presidents.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Congress cannot criminalize a president’s conduct “in the exercise of the responsibilities of the executive branch.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, warned in dissent that the decision would make future presidents “kings above the law.”

The Supreme Court initially rejected Smith’s effort. We will solve the immunity questions in December – allowing the normal process to proceed with the federal appeals court stepping in first. Two months later, in mid-February, after the appeals court ruled in Smith’s favor, it was Trump who asked the justices to review the presidential immunity issue.

The court accepted the case in February but did not hear arguments until the end of April. He made his decision on July 1, the last day of his term. And the case was finally sent back to trial court in D.C. in August.

Judge Cannon killed Mar-a-Lago case

The election overthrow case was always expected to face years of litigation because of the questions it raises about criminalizing actions taken by a sitting president.

However, the case in which Trump was accused of mishandling national defense information was seen as a much simpler investigation because it focused on Trump’s post-presidency behavior and dealt with a well-established area of ​​law.

But Trump hit the jackpot by assigning this case to himself. Judge Aileen Cannon, He is a self-appointed appointee with little trial experience who had already approached the investigation with notable hostility when he oversaw the pre-indictment case challenging Trump’s FBI search of the Florida Mar-a-Lago resort.

Cannon dealt a series of blows to prosecutors’ case before dismissing the case outright this summer on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed. His handling of the accusations was widely criticized by legal experts, and the impeachment order was set for review by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until those deadlines were postponed with Trump’s win.

Notably, Smith is not stopping the Justice Department from pursuing Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, two Trump staffers who allegedly aided their boss in efforts to thwart the federal investigation.

What to do next in this case will be on the Trump Justice Department’s agenda. While Trump may seek to drop charges against his allies, the Justice Department will have to balance that against its institutional desire to clear the books of an impeachment that could undermine future special counsel investigations.

Smith keeps door open for charges to be reinstated

In both of his lawsuits against Trump, Smith said he dropped accusations against the president-elect “without prejudice”; This would, in theory, keep the door open to future reopening charges. Drawing attention to the immunity that Trump would gain by re-entering the White House, Smith repeatedly stated that this immunity was “temporary”.

Smith’s filing in the election overturning case in Washington, D.C., included a longer discussion of how he reached his decision to drop that case; here he had to weigh the Justice Department’s long-standing position banning lawsuits against a sitting president against the principle that no one is in office. “above the law.”

Smith said he consulted with Justice Department lawyers on the question and they are considering the possibility of pausing the case until Trump no longer has the presidential immunity that protects him. But ultimately, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that prohibitions on prosecuting sitting presidents are “categorical,” including indictments filed before a defendant takes office, Smith said.

Smith’s move on Monday will likely bring attention and perhaps criticism to the Justice Department’s views, which have not yet been directly tested by the courts.

Trump’s lawyers are getting top positions at the Justice Department as a thank you

Smith’s impeachment filings come to the end of a chapter for criminal lawyers who have been mostly successful in fending off criminal investigations into Trump. But a new chapter has already turned for several members of the Trump legal team. I have already been rewarded with important positions under the new administration.

Todd Blanche, who played a central role in the D.C. investigation and other Trump cases, was appointed by Trump to be the Justice Department’s No. 2 deputy attorney general.

John Sauer, who argued the immunity dispute before the Supreme Court on Trump’s behalf, was chosen by Trump to be the attorney general of the United States, the federal government’s top lawyer before the high court. Both positions are subject to Senate confirmation.

In addition, Trump announced that another member of his personal legal team, Emile Bove, would serve as acting deputy attorney general while Blanche awaits confirmation and would later transition to an assistant attorney general as attorney general, a position that does not come before the Senate.

CNN’s Paula Reid contributed to this report.

For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at: CNN.com