Criminal law should be clear so that those covered by it can understand what is permitted and what is prohibited. It’s not the place for creative interpretations by the judiciary or partisan prosecutors. Jack Smith has now dropped his cases against president-elect Donald Trump on the grounds that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted, but there is much more that made these prosecutions untenable: They were never grounded in any fair reading of the law that Smith relied upon. The two cases involved Trump’s handling of classified material and his purported efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Trump was first indicted in June 2023 in a federal court in Miami on 37 felony counts related to mishandling classified documents that he took from the White House to his Florida home. They included willful retention of national defense information, making false statements, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. A Florida judge dismissed the case, but Smith's office had sought an appeal.

Trump was separately indicted on four felonies in August 2023 for his attempt to reverse the 2020 election results: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

Months before Smith moved to dismiss the cases, his prosecutions were on the rocks. In July the Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. Moreover, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. Since then, we learned how factually weak the case was. For example, we learned what had previously been hidden -- that he had in fact asked for the National Guard to be present on January 6 to prevent any possible rioting (as he had claimed) and that Pentagon leaders had deliberately delayed their deployment to the Capitol. (Something they concealed for over three years.)

WASHINGTON -- Today, the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released transcripts of interviews conducted by the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG) that contradict the findings published in their January 6 report, “Review of the DoD’s Role, Responsibilities, and Actions to Prepare for and Respond to the Protest and its Aftermath at the U.S. Capitol Campus on January 6, 2021.”

In their report, the DoD IG claims that the actions at the Pentagon were “reasonable in light of the circumstances” at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The IG also determined that “DoD officials did not delay or obstruct the DoD’s response to the [U.S. Capitol Police’s] [Request for Assistance] on January 6, 2021.” The Subcommittee’s investigation into the delayed National Guard response on January 6, including these newly obtained witness transcripts, suggest the exact opposite.

Previously concealed by the Biden-Harris Administration for over........

© American Thinker