Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumshypothetically, after Trump is out of office, can the charges Jack Smith filled
and Aileen Canon made disappear be refilled or is there a limitation? I have not seen this addressed explicitly (or maybe I missed it).
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hypothetically, after Trump is out of office, can the charges Jack Smith filled (Original Post)
drray23
Dec 18
OP
Ocelot II
(129,150 posts)1. Depends. The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years.
albacore
(2,745 posts)2. You are presuming..
A) that he will leave. (???)
B) that he will leave office alive. (???)
GreenWave
(12,369 posts)3. Since informants may gotten murdered by him leaving the intel at mierdalago
perhaps there is no way out.
https://www.ms.now/opinion/msnbc-opinion/jack-smith-trump-election-interference-why-motion-dismiss-rcna181852
How Jack Smith quietly ensured Trumps Jan. 6 case isnt actually going anywhere
Smith's move could be an effort to keep the cases alive in the long term.
snip
In addition, by filing his motions pre-emptively, Smith was able to explain his reasons for dismissing the case, rather than allowing Trumps future AG to mischaracterize them. According to Smith, he was dismissing the case not because of the merits or strength of the cases, but because he had to. As Smith explains, the DOJs Office of Legal Counsel, whose opinions are binding on the special counsel, has concluded that a sitting president may not be indicted or criminally prosecuted under the Constitution. OLC reasoned that criminal charges would make it impossible for a president to carry out his constitutional duties in light of the distraction of preparing a criminal defense, the public stigma that would hamper his leadership role and the obstacles prison would impose on his ability to perform his duties.
But Smith was careful to note that this relief from criminal prosecution is temporary, and ends when the president leaves office. Smith cites OLC as concluding that this form of immunity for a sitting president would generally result in the delay, but not the forbearance, of any criminal trial That is, Trump gets a reprieve, but only during his term in office.
Of course, as in most criminal cases, the statute of limitations here is five years from the date of the last act alleged in the indictments. In the Jan. 6 case, the last alleged conduct occurred in January 2021, so the deadline for filing new charges would typically be January 2026. In the documents case, in which the last act occurred in August 2022, the statute will expire in August 2027. Both dates will arrive well before Trumps term ends. But Smiths brief contains another tell when he writes that OLC has noted the possibility that a court might equitably toll the statute of limitations to permit proceeding against the President once out of office. That is, a court could call a timeout, pausing it on Trumps inauguration day on Jan. 21, 2025, and then restarting the clock when Trump leaves office in 2029. That would give prosecutors plenty of time to refile charges. Certainly, the tolling issue would be litigated, but by dismissing the case now, Smith preserves this issue for future prosecutors to argue.
snip
As OLC has written, the bar on prosecuting a president is not forever a president is ultimately accountable for his misconduct that occurs before, during, and after his service to the country. As Smith writes, the president lacks the prerogatives of a king and his protection from prosecution.
Smith's move could be an effort to keep the cases alive in the long term.
snip
In addition, by filing his motions pre-emptively, Smith was able to explain his reasons for dismissing the case, rather than allowing Trumps future AG to mischaracterize them. According to Smith, he was dismissing the case not because of the merits or strength of the cases, but because he had to. As Smith explains, the DOJs Office of Legal Counsel, whose opinions are binding on the special counsel, has concluded that a sitting president may not be indicted or criminally prosecuted under the Constitution. OLC reasoned that criminal charges would make it impossible for a president to carry out his constitutional duties in light of the distraction of preparing a criminal defense, the public stigma that would hamper his leadership role and the obstacles prison would impose on his ability to perform his duties.
But Smith was careful to note that this relief from criminal prosecution is temporary, and ends when the president leaves office. Smith cites OLC as concluding that this form of immunity for a sitting president would generally result in the delay, but not the forbearance, of any criminal trial That is, Trump gets a reprieve, but only during his term in office.
Of course, as in most criminal cases, the statute of limitations here is five years from the date of the last act alleged in the indictments. In the Jan. 6 case, the last alleged conduct occurred in January 2021, so the deadline for filing new charges would typically be January 2026. In the documents case, in which the last act occurred in August 2022, the statute will expire in August 2027. Both dates will arrive well before Trumps term ends. But Smiths brief contains another tell when he writes that OLC has noted the possibility that a court might equitably toll the statute of limitations to permit proceeding against the President once out of office. That is, a court could call a timeout, pausing it on Trumps inauguration day on Jan. 21, 2025, and then restarting the clock when Trump leaves office in 2029. That would give prosecutors plenty of time to refile charges. Certainly, the tolling issue would be litigated, but by dismissing the case now, Smith preserves this issue for future prosecutors to argue.
snip
As OLC has written, the bar on prosecuting a president is not forever a president is ultimately accountable for his misconduct that occurs before, during, and after his service to the country. As Smith writes, the president lacks the prerogatives of a king and his protection from prosecution.