In a twist that could only be described as a plot straight out of a political thriller, the special counsel’s report reveals that Donald Trump, if not for his re-election four years later, might have found himself on the wrong side of a courtroom gavel for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 Presidential election results.
Released by the US Justice Department, the report penned by Special Counsel Jack Smith pulls back the curtain on the tumultuous efforts of Mr. Trump to manipulate the electoral outcome—a grand finale to a legal saga that, while historic, was ultimately derailed by his election victory in November. A curious outcome, isn’t it? The very act of being elected seems to have granted him a protective cloak against accountability.
The report makes it abundantly clear: “the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President,” regardless of the severity of the alleged crimes or the strength of the evidence. Smith’s office concluded that had Trump not returned to power, the evidence they had at their disposal would have been solid enough to secure a conviction. Imagine that—a story of political fate hanging on the whims of a democratic electorate.
Interestingly, the report notes that Smith even mulled over the possibility of charging Trump with incitement to insurrection. In the end, perhaps wisely, they decided against it. There’s a hint of irony in that decision, considering the firestorm of controversy that surrounded the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed Congress in a desperate bid to thwart the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.
But the intrigue doesn’t stop there. Smith’s investigation also takes a deep dive into allegations regarding Trump’s retention of sensitive national security documents post-White House. However, it seems the Justice Department has opted to keep this particular chapter under wraps while legal battles align against two of Trump’s former associates embroiled in the same case. Talk about keeping the audience on the edge of their seats!
Just last week, Smith announced the dropping of both cases against Trump, a decision guided not by the merit of the claims but by a long-standing Justice Department policy that frowns upon prosecuting sitting presidents. And, in true Trump fashion, the former president maintains his defiance, pleading not guilty to all charges. Can you blame him for wanting to fight back against what he calls “politically motivated” prosecutions?
Upon the release of the report, a characteristic Trump tweet rolled out, labeling Smith as “deranged” and claiming he was “unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss.’” But wait—did he really just critique someone’s effectiveness based on a 1 A.M. release time? That’s either bold or desperate—all up for interpretation.
In a dramatic prelude to his anticipated return to office on January 20, Trump and his two co-defendants in the classified documents case threw legal attempts to block the release of the report, but courts, quite unsurprisingly, smacked down those efforts to keep it under wraps.
Now, one shudders to think of how this will play out on Capitol Hill. Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw the documents case, has issued a temporary stop to the Justice Department’s plans to allow senior members of Congress to privately review the document-heavy section of Smith’s report. It’s like a game of political chess, with each side plotting their next move, but in the courtroom instead of the boardroom.
For those who want to dive deeper, Smith had previously outlined the prosecution’s case against Trump in detailed court filings, while a congressional panel contributed a hefty 700-page exposé on Trump’s post-election maneuvers. Both investigations corroborated that following the electoral defeat, Trump propagated baseless claims of massive voter fraud and leaned heavily on state officials to reject the certification of the votes. It’s a labyrinthine tale that intertwines political ambition and legal drama, culminating in chaos at the Capitol.
Strangely enough, legal barriers began to rise before Trump’s election win even solidified his position. The legal tug of war was prolonged as he argued that his actions as president rendered him immune from prosecution—a claim that, much to his benefit, found favor with the conservative-heavy US Supreme Court.
And so, as this multifaceted saga unfolds, one can’t help but wonder: what does this mean for our political landscape? For every twist and turn, there’s a lesson about power, accountability, and the murky waters of justice in politics. Perhaps the tale is far from over, and we’re all just mere spectators in this ongoing drama.
Report By Axadle
Edited by: Ali Musa
alimusa@axadletimes.com
Axadle international–Monitoring
