Advertisement
Subscribe for free to eliminate ads
Advertisement
Despite the relentless efforts of three special prosecutors and over $90 million spent, Donald Trump emerges victorious, now free from any federal criminal charges. This monumental outcome is poised to become a key chapter in both legal and political history.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz expressed his belief that the federal cases against President Trump are concluded, dismissing any claims that Trump remains under indictment for those cases. In his podcast, The Dershow, he emphasized that no further charges would arise after Trump leaves office, pointing to the constitutional nature of the legal outcomes.
Advertisement
Dershowitz further explained that the claims about technical reasons are not about technicalities—they are about constitutional rights. Remember, Trump didn’t even have the chance to defend himself. He underscored that the legal challenges against Trump were fundamentally tied to issues of constitutional law.
Advertisement
On the same day, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s cases were dismissed, including the January 6 election subversion case in Washington and a classified records case in Florida. This raised an important legal question about the constitutional validity of special prosecutors like Smith and former Russia investigation special counsel Robert Mueller.
Advertisement
Both Smith and Mueller were appointed by attorneys general without Senate confirmation, raising questions about whether their appointments violated the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s legal team challenged Smith’s appointment, arguing that it violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution since Smith was not a sitting U.S. attorney and had not been confirmed by the Senate.
Earlier this summer, Trump won a key ruling from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who declared that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could only appoint a sitting U.S. attorney as special counsel and any appointments outside this pool required Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause. Cannon stressed the importance of this constitutional restriction, highlighting the need for congressional involvement in the process.
Advertisement
Cannon wrote, that the Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps important legislative authority, emphasizing that if the DOJ intends to appoint someone like Smith, it must follow the standard Senate confirmation process.
Advertisement
The issue remained under appeal when Smith moved to dismiss charges against Trump, citing his immunity as a soon-to-be sitting president. Smith wrote that, with Trump removed from the case, the appellate court should decide whether to proceed with the legal challenge regarding Smith’s appointment, which remains unresolved for the other two defendants, Trump aides Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira.
The appeal could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially setting a precedent for future special counsel appointments in politically charged investigations.
While the legal battles continue, the financial toll of the investigations has become apparent. Mueller and his team spent $32 million in their investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, ultimately finding no evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy. Special Prosecutor John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Russia probe cost $7.6 million and concluded the FBI had no legal basis to investigate Trump.
Smith’s investigation has spent over $50 million, and the total cost of these investigations now exceeds $90 million money spent trying to determine if Trump committed crimes, even as he has been declared innocent in all federal matters.
The results of these investigations have sparked a backlash, especially among conservatives. Some argue that the immense financial and political cost of these legal efforts against Trump has been counterproductive.
Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project and former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer mentioned that for nearly eight years, Mueller, Weissmann, Smith, Bratt, and others have spent nearly $100 million trying to destroy Trump and his America’s First movement, while this unprecedented Democrat lawfare backfired spectacularly in the courts and the election. It was also added by Davis that the backfire occurred spectacularly on November 5th when the verdict was delivered by the American people.
Advertisement
Share the article to spread the truth
