Donald Trump won’t face charges over January 6 riots – here’s why
US prosecutors have moved to dismiss criminal charges against Donald Trump which accused him of involvement in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
A second case focused on classified documents was also thrown out, leaving many questioning why. The answer is simple – sitting US presidents cannot face criminal prosecution.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was leading the cases, said the Justice Department’s position ‘is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated’.
Trump was accused of inciting the deadly Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, through his actions.
He had been facing criminal charges of conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
Trump previously threatened to ‘immediately fire’ special counsel Smith if he was re-elected.
‘Oh, it’s so easy. It’s so easy… I would fire him within two seconds,’ Trump said.
Smith’s team said abandoning the charges against Trump was because of the Justice Department’s policy.
‘That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,’ prosecutors wrote.
The 2020 election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing the Trump as he vied to reclaim the White House.
However, it quickly stalled amid legal fighting over Mr Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for acts he took while in the White House.
The US Supreme Court in July ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that Trump has at least presumptive immunity for his acts while serving in the White House.
‘The president is not above the law,’ Roberts wrote at the time. ‘But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.’
Writing for the court’s three dissenting liberals, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling ‘makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government that no man is above the law’.
‘Let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends,’ wrote Sotomayor.
‘Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.’