A prosecutor says there was enough evidence in the 2020 US election case - but he was scuppered by Trump's win in 2024.
Summary
Special counsel Jack Smith's report asserts sufficient evidence existed to convict Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election but cites Trump’s 2024 presidential victory as the reason charges were dropped, due to constitutional protections for sitting presidents.
Smith detailed Trump’s actions, including pressuring officials, spreading false election claims, and encouraging protests.
While charges against co-conspirators were considered, no final conclusions were reached.
Smith denied political bias, emphasizing adherence to facts and law.
The report also references challenges like expanded presidential immunity.
Well great job dragging your asses and never getting this out in time to save the USA. Now we get at least 4 more years of terror, hopefully we're all still here after.
Not with a lot of the modern GOP. They're fully convinced the "establishment" is out to get each and every one of them, personally, and Trump being accused of interfering in an election is just fuel on that fire.
I think if anyone is to blame, and there are people, it's not Jack Smith. I feel he's one that actually did try and got fucked at every turn by corruption and Canon.
Yeah, no shit. Words can't describe how furious I am about Jan. 6 and the utter lack of accountability for the powerful people responsible for it. Including the GOP bootlickers in power at the time and still to this day.
Look at them trying to convince us there's rule of law. Don't worry guys, the system that isn't completely corrupt to its core WOULD have worked. Source: Trust me bro.
Jack Smith better be getting him and his family the fuck out of the U.S. and to a country without an extradition treaty because their lives are worth nothing in America now.
let the records show that i did in fact do my homework. to prove this, i will release it publicly to world. pay no mind to the fact that the deadline has already passed.
What is the constitutional protection for sitting presidents? You mean that part in the constitution which says presidents are basically kings and they are above the law and they can do whatever they want? Oh yeah, that part. That part that totally exists and totally says that.
SCOTUS says this constitutional protections are there. We should totally trust SCOTUS. It’s not like SCOTUS is unbelievably corrupt, doing the bidding of billionaires, or trying to usher in a Conservative wet dream.