Donald Trump has been cleared of all federal criminal charges after a costly and extensive investigation involving three special prosecutors.
Just The News reported that Trump has been exonerated from all federal criminal charges after enduring prolonged scrutiny by three special prosecutors, incurring costs surpassing $90 million. This legal resolution is considered a significant victory for Trump, influencing future political and legal narratives.
The investigations led by special counsels Robert Mueller, John Durham, and Jack Smith, along with Jay Bratt, have accumulated expenses amounting to at least $90 million.
Mueller's investigation cost $32 million, Durham's amounted to $7.6 million, and the combined efforts of Smith and Bratt exceeded $50 million.
The financial burden of these probes has been borne by taxpayers, drawing criticism from conservatives and others who deem these efforts both costly and ineffective.
Legal challenges have been raised regarding the appointment of Jack Smith and the former special counsel on Russia collusion, Robert Mueller. Critics argue their appointments without Senate confirmation breach the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon supported this view, ruling that such appointments without Senate confirmation are unconstitutional. Her ruling remains in effect, influencing ongoing legal proceedings.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was reviewing this case when Smith opted to dismiss charges against Trump, citing the constitutional protections afforded to him due to his impending presidency.
The appeals process is still active for Trump's aides, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, who do not share the same immunity as Trump. The outcome of these appeals could potentially reshape the Department of Justice's future legal strategies, especially under Trump's presidency.
Notably, if the political branches agree, there exists a constitutionally valid method to appoint a special counsel like Smith with full powers. This would involve an appointment and confirmation through the Senate, as emphasized by Judge Cannon.
Legal expert Alan Dershowitz commented on the closure of the federal cases against Trump, stating, "I think the federal cases are over. They are done with, and nobody should say that President Trump is under indictment for federal cases."
Dershowitz also criticized the dismissal of charges on so-called technical grounds, asserting that they were actually constitutional issues. He highlighted that Trump had not been given an adequate chance to defend himself.
Mike Davis, a political commentator, voiced his perspective on the extensive efforts to undermine Trump and his policies, which he claims backfired, particularly reflected in the legal outcomes and the recent electoral verdict delivered by the American people on November 5th.
He described the legal actions against Trump as "unprecedented Democrat lawfare and election interference," which he believes ultimately failed to achieve their goals, evidenced by the legal and public reactions to the investigations and their conclusions.
The dismissal of the indictment against Trump by Jack Smith left the district court’s order in effect, dismissing the indictment without prejudice concerning Trump. This decision is likely to be a focal point in future discussions on the role and powers of special counsels in the U.S. legal system.
As the legal and political narratives continue to unfold, the impact of these investigations on U.S. governance and Trump’s political career remains a pivotal subject of national interest.
