WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith filed motions to drop all federal charges against President-elect Donald Trump regarding his mishandling of classified documents and his effort to overturn his 2020 presidential election in the lead-up to the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S Capitol.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan granted Smith's motion hours after it was filed Monday. She dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning it could be reopened in the future. Smith wrote in the filing seeking the dismissal of the election interference case that while prosecutors' view of Trump's alleged crimes has not changed, the circumstances surrounding his looming trial have. Trump's victory "sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests," Smith wrote: the Constitutional requirement that the president should not be "unduly encumbered" and a commitment to the rule of law.

There is longstanding policy at the Justice Department that a sitting president can't be prosecuted — a reality that made the stakes of Trump's presidential bid even higher. "This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant," Smith's filing read. Zoom out: Smith also filed Monday to dismiss his appeal in Trump's classified documents case, which was dismissed this summer by Judge Aileen Cannon. But the appeal concerning the other two defendants in the case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, will continue, Smith noted in his motion to dismiss with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A state appeals court on Thursday removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others, the latest legal victory for the president-elect in criminal cases that once threatened his career and freedom. The case against Trump and more than a dozen others had already been stalled for months over an appeal related to a romantic relationship Willis had with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the case. Citing an “appearance of impropriety” that might not typically warrant such a removal, a Georgia Court of Appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling that “this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Willis’ office immediately filed a notice of intent to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision. But pursuing a criminal case against a sitting president is a virtual impossibility. And Trump will return to the White House having overcome efforts to prosecute him and empowered by a Supreme Court ruling granting him presumptive immunity for any “official acts” he takes in office. The development comes weeks after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned two federal prosecutions against the incoming president, and as sentencing in a separate hush money case in New York is indefinitely on hold as a result of Trump’s victory in November over Democratic President Joe Biden.

A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty. Trump told Fox News Digital that the case “should not be allowed to go any further.” The president-elect added: “Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years.” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said the ruling was “well-reasoned and just.” Representatives for Willis did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment on the ruling. The allegations that Willis had improperly benefited from her romance with Wade resulted in a tumultuous couple of months in the case as intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives were aired in court in mid-February. A defendant’s motion alleged that Willis and Wade were involved in an inappropriate romantic relationship and that Willis paid Wade large sums for his work and then benefited when he paid for lavish vacations. Willis and Wade acknowledged the relationship but said they didn’t begin dating until the spring of 2022. Wade was hired in November 2021, and their romance ended in the summer of 2023, they said. They also testified that they split travel and other costs roughly evenly, with Willis often paying expenses or reimbursing Wade in cash.

Speaking at a historically Black church in Atlanta soon after the relationship allegations surfaced, Willis defended Wade’s qualifications and her own leadership of her office. Defense lawyers said that speech included a series of improper and prejudicial comments against the defendants and their legal team, poisoning any potential jurors against them. The appeals court majority opinion, written by Judge Trenton Brown and joined by Judge Todd Markle, said “the remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring. ”In a dissenting opinion, Judge Benjamin Land wrote that “the law does not support the result reached by the majority.” Trial court judges, he said, have broad discretion to to impose a remedy to fit a situation and the appeals court should respect that. We are here to ensure the law has been applied correctly and to correct harmful legal errors when we see them. It is not our job to second-guess trial judges or to substitute our judgment for theirs,” he wrote.

“Where, as here, a prosecutor has no actual conflict of interest and the trial court, based on the evidence presented to it, rejects the allegations of actual impropriety, we have no authority to reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify,” he said, arguing that the majority opinion goes against decades of precedent in Georgia. The ruling by the appeals court panel means it will be up to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to find another prosecutor to take over the case, though that could be delayed if the state Supreme Court takes the case. It could be difficult to find another prosecutor willing to take it on given the extensive resources needed to prosecute the sprawling and complex case. That person could continue on the track that Willis has taken, decide to pursue only some charges or dismiss the case altogether. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, the trial court judge, had ruled in March that no conflict of interest existed that should force Willis off the case. Trump and the others appealed that ruling. McAfee wrote that the prosecution was “encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.” He said Willis could remain on the case only if Wade left; the special prosecutor submitted his resignation hours later.

NEW YORK, Jan 3 (Reuters) - Donald Trumpmust be sentenced in the criminal case in which he was convicted on criminal charges involving hush money paid to a porn star on Jan. 10, just days before he is set to be inaugurated as president, a judge ruled on Friday.

--snrps--

They suggested several options for Merchan, including delaying the sentencing until Trump, 78, leaves the White House in 2029, or guaranteeing a sentence that would not involve prison time.

Merchan wrote that a sentence of "unconditional discharge" - meaning no custody, monetary fine, or probation - would be "the most viable solution."

The judge’s decision will preserve Trump’s status as a felon — a first for any president.

His attorneys argued in the wake of his November victory that the case should be dismissed entirely. Prosecutors floated several options for his sentencing, which had already been delayed by a Supreme Court decision stating that presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts.

Merchan determined last month that the charges against Trump did not involve any conduct relating to his duties as president, and thus were valid.

He wrote in his Friday order that “a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”

Unconditional discharge is a rare sentence that allows a defendant to walk free with no strings attached.

Trump has said he intends to nominate two of his attorneys from the trial, Emil Bove and Todd Blanche, to positions at the Justice Department in his second administration as he seeks to surround himself with loyalists.

Trump Tells Judge Sentencing In Hush Money Case Must Be Stopped

Although the judge presiding over President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money case has already indicated he would not sentence the incoming president to prison time for his 34-count felony conviction, lawyers for Trump now want to nix the sentencing hearing while an appeal is underway.

Trump, who will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, is slated to face sentencing on Friday. When he is sentenced, he will formally be considered a convicted felon.

Trump’s attorneys, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, said they intend to formally file their appeal Monday and that they will contest two previous rulings from the judge that rejected bids to dismiss the case on immunity grounds.

In a request filed in New York on Sunday, the attorneys argued that the Constitution and protections already afforded to Trump under the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling last year mean there can be no sentencing while he actively appeals.

In a dig at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Blanche and Bove wrote Monday that the case should be dismissed and the sentencing immediately halted because the entire matter was “flawed from the very beginning, [and] centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar attorney” eager to violate Trump’s due process rights.

Bragg filed a motion opposing Trump’s request on Monday.

The trial ended over seven months ago, Bragg wrote, and all post-trial motions have been adjudicated. As for sentencing, the district attorney urged that “the Court has already stated its intent to impose the lowest possible sentence authorized by law: an unconditional discharge.”

“There is no risk here of an ‘extended proceeding’ that impairs the discharge of defendant’s official duties — duties he does not possess before January 20, 2025,” Bragg wrote.

Further, Trump’s conduct underpinning the charges has been disputed at length, and it was determined already that it was not official.

“And, until his inauguration on January 20, 2025, defendant is simply not engaged in any official presidential functions that would support a claim of immunity from ordinary criminal process. Because the charges on which defendant was convicted are wholly unrelated to his official conduct, and because defendant relies on a purported ‘President-elect’ immunity doctrine that does not exist, his invocation of immunity does not entitle him to an automatic stay pending appeal,” Bragg wrote.

When New York Judge Juan Merchan issued a ruling on Dec. 16 flatly rejecting Trump’s presidential immunity arguments as grounds for dismissal, he explained his reasoning: The evidence presented and used to convict Trump related “entirely to unofficial conduct,” and the Supreme Court had left the door open to prosecution for unofficial acts.

In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up an alleged tryst he had with adult film actor Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Trial evidence and testimony from Trump’s onetime fixer and attorney, Michael Cohen, demonstrated how Cohen helped coordinate the cover-up of a $130,000 payment for Daniels that was meant to keep the news from spilling out into the public.

Even after his conviction, Trump has continued to claim he is not guilty.

When Merchan refused to dismiss the case in December, he wrote that falsifying business records “poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the executive branch.”

In his order for Trump to appear at sentencing, the judge said Trump should be permitted to “avail himself of every available appeal,” but the sentencing hearing would move ahead nonetheless. The only “viable” course forward would be to issue a sentence under the terms of “unconditional discharge,” Merchan wrote.

This type of sentence, which imposes no fines or prison time, is rare, but when applied, it is typically because there is no practical punishment available.

Trump’s lawyers asked for a response from the judge by 2 p.m. on Monday. If there is none, his lawyers said they will file a request for an emergency appellate review.

In addition to vacating the sentencing hearing scheduled to take place this week, they have also asked that all further deadlines in the case be “fully and finally resolved.”

SubRosa wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2025 11:15 pm He can't pardon non-federal crimes.

His conviction is from a State court.

Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to remove special counsel Jack Smith from his post and either decline to release Smith's upcoming report detailing his investigations into the president-elect or hand over the matter to Trump's incoming administration, according to a letter released Monday. The letter, addressed to Garland and a top career official at the Justice Department, alleged the special counsel did not have the legal authority to submit a final report summarizing his dual investigations into Trump and urged the attorney general to "put an end to this weaponization of the justice system and move forward constructively." The correspondence was written in part by defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emile Bove, Trump's picks to serve as deputy attorney general and principal deputy attorney general in his upcoming administration.

Smith led two now-defunct investigations into the president-elect, one tied to his alleged efforts to resist the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and another based on accusations that Trump unlawfully retained sensitive government records after he left office in 2021. The probes resulted in criminal indictments against Trump, which have since been dismissed. Trump initially pleaded not guilty and denied all wrongdoing. The classified documents case was dismissed by a federal judge in Florida who ruled in July 2024 that Garland unlawfully appointed Smith, a finding the Justice Department disputed and was appealing in the runup to the presidential election. The 2020 election-related charges against Trump were dismissed after Trump was re-elected. The special counsel wrote that Justice Department policy forbids the prosecution of a sitting president.

Federal regulations dictate that upon the completion of any special counsel probe, the investigative team is to submit a report detailing its findings to the attorney general for review. Garland has previously pledged to publicly release all special counsel reports completed under his tenure and so far kept to that promise, including after a separate special counsel, Robert Hur, submitted his findings about President Biden's handling of classified records. Mr. Biden's legal team raised objections to the attorney general over characterizations in that report, which were rebuffed by Justice Department officials when the complete findings — including characterizations of Mr. Biden's age — were publicly released. Smith has been working on a final report to be completed before Trump's inauguration, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News. Following its submission, the special counsel is expected to resign as other independent prosecutors have done, the sources said. In Monday's letter, Trump's attorneys revealed that they reviewed a draft of Smith's report over the last few days at the special counsel's office and raised objections, arguing the preparation of a report would violate federal law related to official appointments and presidential transitions.

"Because Smith has proposed an unlawful course of action, you must countermand his plan and remove him promptly. If Smith is not removed, then the handling of his report should be deferred to President Trump's incoming attorney general, consistent with the expressed will of the People," Trump's attorneys wrote. They also said they would seek legal recourse should Garland deny their requests. Should Garland opt to hand over the report to Trump's incoming Justice Department for consideration, as the letter suggested, much of the decision-making could fall to the president-elect's current defense team who will hold key leadership positions within the department, and his selection for attorney general, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

In response to the court filing, the special counsel said that while his team is "working to finalize" a two-volume report to hand in to Garland, the attorney general will commit to not releasing it to the public until at least Friday at 10 a.m. to give the court time to rule. "The Attorney General has not yet determined how to handle the report volume pertaining to this case," the Justice Department said.

Former White House attorney Ty Cobb, who served in President-elect Trump’s first administration, sharply criticized U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for temporarily blocking the Justice Department from releasing special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump’s two prosecutions. In an interview on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront,” the anchor noted that Trump, in his press conference on Tuesday, praised Cannon as a “brilliant” judge five separate times. Asked to weigh in on the press conference and Trump’s use of the term “brilliant” to describe Cannon, Cobb, using wordplay, said, “Well, to the extent that she’s brilliant, she’s shining. And the only reason she’s shining is she’s his tool, and he polishes her religiously.”

“He gets the results he needs from her,” he added. The ruling from Cannon comes after Trump’s two co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents case asked her to bar the release of both sections of Smith’s report, including that dealing with Trump’s election interference case. It’s not clear the extent of Cannon’s purview over the case, as a prior ruling from her tossing the case has been appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court has ordered a response by 10 a.m. on Wednesday. Cobb said he thinks that timeline suggests the court “may be prepared to mitigate the stain that she is and the stain that she’s created again for the judiciary quickly on this.”

Cannon has repeatedly come under fire for her handling of Trump’s case, ruling in favor of the president on various motions legal observers described as long-shot bids. The appeals court also has previously reversed Cannon’s rulings, including one appointing a special master to review the documents collected from Trump’s home for materials potentially protected by executive privilege, blocking their release to investigators. Cobb said he expects the appeals court to reverse Cannon’s decision once again.

“The 11th Circuit has already, as we know, over two years ago, had to admonish her extensively for the rules and the remedies that she created out of whole cloth for him after the Mar-a-Lago search, and made it clear that, you know, she was way out of bounds, and overruled her,” Cobb said. “I suspect they will do so again quickly.”

highdesert wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:10 am Cannon was a partisan choice, she thinks Trump will promote her to the circuit court or SCOTUS. Most Trump appointees follow the law, the 11th Circuit which includes Trump appointees criticized Cannon.