@ForgotMyPasswordAgain's comment on ':marseymemories: GUYS DRUMF WOULD HAVE FR FR NO CAP 100% RIZZED DOWN GONE TO JAIL :marseytrumpmugshot: IF HE LOST: Special Counsel Jack-off Smith's Report Release Party Edition :sadwalz:'

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1i0zo6b/special_counsel_report_says_trump_would_have_been/

Supposed report

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25486132-report-of-special-counsel-smith-volume-1-january-2025/

https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/comments/1i0zbai/is_this_it_jack_smith_release/

https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/comments/1i0zl9x/sleep_well_everyone/

https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1i0zdn9/special_counsel_report_says_trump_would_have_been/

VI. CONCLUSION

On remand from the Supreme Court's decision in Trump, the district court set a litigation schedule whereby the parties would submit briefs regarding whether any material in the superseding indictment was subject to presidential immunity. ECF No. 233. The parties were in the middle of that process when the results of the presidential election made clear that Mr. Trump would be inaugurated as President of the United States on January 20, 2025. As described above, it has long been the Department's interpretation that the Constitution forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President, but the election results raised for the first time the question of the lawful course when a private citizen who has already been indicted is then elected President. The Department determined that the case must be dismissed without prejudice before Mr. Trump takes office, and the Office therefore moved to dismiss the indictment on November 25, 2024. See ECF No. 281. The district court granted the motion the same day. ECF No. 283.

The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not tum on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.