The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn 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.
Smith also for the first time explained the thought process behind his team’s prosecution decisions, writing that his office decided not to charge Trump with incitement in part because of free speech concerns, or with insurrection because he was the sitting president at the time and there was doubt about proceeding to trial with the offence — of which there was no record of having been prosecuted before.Mr Trump’s resort to intimidation and harassment during the investigation was not new, as demonstrated by his actions during the charged conspiracies.
A fundamental component of Mr. Trump’s conduct underlying the charges in the Election Case was his pattern of using social media — at the time, Twitter — to publicly attack and seek to influence state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to support false claims that the election had been stolen or who otherwise resisted complicity in Mr Trump’s scheme.
IMO MAGA IMOUnited States, the land of democracy, what’s happened to you?
Indeed. I hope Websleuthers, who are normally committed to looking at evidence, will read this carefully researched and prepared report thoroughly. This evidence was considered sufficient to take the case to trial had Trump not been re-elected. We all should want to know what the evidence is.I hope everyone here, regardless of political persuasion, will take the time to read the report.
What do you mean by that?IMO MAGA IMO
I think @Stunned means that Trump has marked a democratic decline in the US.What do you mean by that?