After spending over $90 million and exhaustive eight-year investigations by three special prosecutors, no federal criminal charges have been filed against Donald Trump.
The saga of probing former President Donald Trump reached its climax as Jack Smith, the final special prosecutor in a series of three, ended the pursuit without filing federal criminal charges according to Just The News.
This investigation, which examined allegations ranging from election interference to mishandling classified records, placed a significant financial burden on taxpayers, reportedly costing upwards of $90 million, according to disclosures from the Department of Justice.
Over the years, the investigations led by special prosecutors Robert Mueller, John Durham, and Jack Smith have targeted various aspects of Trump's presidency and post-presidency actions.
While the earlier probes by Mueller and Durham resulted in certain indictments and convictions, they ultimately did not implicate Trump directly in federal criminal misconduct.
Jack Smith, the recently appointed special prosecutor, decided to dismiss both major cases he inherited – the January 6 election subversion and the handling of classified documents.
This dismissal was influenced significantly by a legal challenge from Trump's defense team questioning the constitutionality of Smith's appointment. The heart of their argument was based on the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, stating that Special Counsels must be Senate-confirmed if they are not current U.S. Attorneys.
This contention went before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who during the summer ruled in favor of Trump. She argued that the lack of Senate confirmation for such crucial roles threatens the integrity of the separation of powers, a foundational principle of American constitutional design.
Despite the dismissal of charges, constitutional debates surrounding the appointment of special prosecutors linger. These unresolved issues have reached the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, Trump was excused from the proceedings owing to presidential immunity, pending further legal interpretations.
The cases against Trump not only brought significant public attention but also stirred constitutional scrutiny over the appointment process of special counsels.
Notably, former U.S. attorneys like Robert Mueller were brought back to lead investigations without current Senate confirmations, raising questions about their legitimacy and the breadth of their prosecutorial powers.
Legal experts such as Alan Dershowitz have commented on the closure of these federal cases, suggesting that any further reference to them as indicative of Trump’s legal jeopardy is misinformed. Dershowitz stressed the constitutional underpinnings of the dismissal, claiming they were not merely "technical reasons" but substantial legal defenses that protected Trump's rights.
Public reaction to these extensive and costly investigations has been mixed, with some critics labeling the efforts as politically motivated attempts to undermine Trump and his "America First" movement. Figures like Mike Davis have argued that these legal battles ultimately failed to dent Trump’s political armor, instead fortifying his support base, evidenced by significant election outcomes on November 5.
The financial ramifications of the investigations are notable, with Mueller and his colleague Weissmann accounting for $32 million, Durham for $7.6 million, and Smith's team surpassing $50 million.
These expenditures have been scrutinized not only for their impact on the federal budget but also for their potential influence on public opinion and electoral outcomes.
The conclusion of these legal inquiries without conclusive evidence against Trump may pose significant reflections on prosecutorial discretion and the political repercussions of legal actions against prominent public figures.
The termination of these intense, protracted, and expensive investigations leaves a significant unresolved constitutional question regarding the appointment of special counsels.
Furthermore, it underscores the complexities and potential overreaches of legal challenges in politically sensitive contexts, presenting a critical moment of introspection for the Department of Justice and broader legal frameworks in the United States.