Judge dismisses charges against Trump in D.C. election case after Jack Smith request

[Michie]

Washington — The federal judge overseeing the 2020 election case against former President Donald Trump agreed to dismiss the charges following a request from special counsel Jack Smith, bringing to a close the historic and unprecedented prosecution of the nation's 45th and 47th president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan grantedSmith's request just hours after he said in a filing that he is seeking to close Trump's case because Justice Department policy forbids the prosecution of a sitting president.

Continued below.

Judge dismisses charges against Trump in D.C. election case after Jack Smith request

Special counsel Jack Smith asked a federal judge to toss out the charges against President-elect Donald Trump in the case stemming from the 2020 election.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Michie]

Judge agrees to dismiss Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case

President-elect Trump faced charges over his handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, which culminated in the U.S. Capitol attack.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Fantine]

$100 million lawyers can't buy innocence, but they can influence decisions that can buy freedom from all but God's final judgment.

 

[Vambram]

$100 million lawyers can't buy innocence, but they can influence decisions that can buy freedom from all but God's final judgment.

The majority of American voters don't believe the lies told to us by the lame stream media and the progressive left wing liberal lawyers, judges, courts, and politicians. That is one of the reasons why Trump won. That is also the reason the charges in the OP have been dismissed.

 

[Fantine]

The majority of American voters don't believe the lies told to us by the lame stream media and the progressive left wing liberal lawyers, judges, courts, and politicians. That is one of the reasons why Trump won. That is also the reason the charges in the OP have been dismissed.

$100 million lawyers delayed, appealed, and obstructed the truth. Most Americans--and the world--are not deceived. As Casting Crowns sings, "The voice of truth tells me a different story."

 

[jacks]

It's interesting to note the different reactions to this news. One group saying "He never should have been charged." and the other saying "Only his power keeps him from being charged."

 

[Vambram]

$100 million lawyers delayed, appealed, and obstructed the truth. Most Americans--and the world--are not deceived. As Casting Crowns sings, "The voice of truth tells me a different story."

It was the progressive left wing liberal lawyers and politicians and the lame stream media who attempted to deceive Americans. I praise God that those attempts failed to deceive most Americans.

 

[Fantine]

A prayerful examination of the facts available in numerous media sources--including actual videos of the crimes--directed me to the unassailable truth.
That and my God-given common sense.

 

[ozso]

All the years long cases against Trump go poof. And the convictions will be overturned. What a huge waste of taxpayer money.

 

[Fantine]

All cases against Trump go poof. And the convictions will be overturned. What a huge waste of taxpayer money.

If you studied the facts you would see his hand-picked judges--Cannon, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh--gave him immunity, ignoring the safety of our democracy and our citizens. It can also be abused by future presidents. Perhaps they could not imagine that a worse president could ever take office. I have a good imagination and I can't. In any case, that does not excuse the damage they have done.
Legal scholars all said the documents case was a slam dunk. He absconded with top secrets and was caught red handed. At this point they are obsolete...but he can steal more and even exchange them for business benefits.
History will judge Smith as an extraordinary patriot. Garland should have proceeded against the promoter of the insurrection in February 2021. Overly timid, cautious.

 

[ozso]

If you studied the facts you would see his hand-picked judges--Cannon, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh--gave him immunity, ignoring the safety of our democracy and our citizens. It can also be abused by future presidents. Perhaps they could not imagine that a worse president could ever take office. I have a good imagination and I can't. In any case, that does not excuse the damage they have done.
Legal scholars all said the documents case was a slam dunk. He absconded with top secrets and was caught red handed. At this point they are obsolete...but he can steal more and even exchange them for business benefits.
History will judge Smith as an extraordinary patriot. Garland should have proceeded against the promoter of the insurrection in February 2021. Overly timid, cautious.

Smith and Garland both shrank away from getting to the point where the rubber hits the road, because they both probably knew their cases would most likely end up going over a cliff.

The whole judicial system going against Trump failed miserably. And I'd be saying even more strongly if I thought the cases were completely legitimate and I wanted to see Trump behind bars.

The SCOTUS ruling will hopefully curtail any future attempts to use the judicial system as a political weapon.

 

[rebornfree]

....because Justice Department policy forbids the prosecution of a sitting president.

Why does such a policy exist? I thought that nobody was above the law. (I'm in the UK, so I'm not familiar with the US justice system and I'm just seeking clarification. )

 

[rebornfree]

$100 million lawyers can't buy innocence, but they can influence decisions that can buy freedom from all but God's final judgment.

Whatever he did or didn't do I hope he comes to repentance and salvation before then, as I do with everybody.

 

[ozso]

Why does such a policy exist? I thought that nobody was above the law. (I'm in the UK, so I'm not familiar with the US justice system and I'm just seeking clarification. )

It goes against the US Constitution.

 

[rebornfree]

It goes against the US Constitution.

Thank you; that helps me understand things a bit better.

 

[ozso]

Thank you; that helps me understand things a bit better.

I should add as far as I know it was deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Fantine]

I should add as far as I know it was deemed unconstitutional.

In a 6-3 decision last year. There have been many controversial decisions by the heavily stacked Supreme Court since Trump appointed three justices that made the Court extremely (dare I say unconstitutionally) conservative.

 

[ozso]

In a 6-3 decision last year. There have been many controversial decisions by the heavily stacked Supreme Court since Trump appointed three justices that made the Court extremely (dare I say unconstitutionally) conservative.

What I was referring to is a 1973 decision made by the DOJ prompted by Watergate.

 

[Fantine]

I thought you were discussing the heavily criticized immunity decision.

 

[ozso]

I thought you were discussing the heavily criticized immunity decision.

I was answering the question in post #12