The Dictatorship
I spent decades upholding the rule of law. The dismissal of Trump’s criminal charges crushed me.
In what feels to many of us like a crushing blow to justice, special counsel Jack Smith on Monday moved to dismiss both of President-elect Donald Trump’s federal criminal prosecutions — the 2020 election subversion case in Washington, D.C., and the classified documents/obstruction of justice/espionage case in Florida. Judge Tanya Chutkan promptly dismissed the D.C. case, and a dismissal of the documents case almost certainly will soon follow. These democracy-busting developments make clear that, at least for the four years a president is in office, he is above the law — the functional equivalent of a king.
How did we get here?
Let’s look at the D.C. case first. In a four-count indictment, Trump was charged for crimes he allegedly committed while he was president, including a conspiracy to deprive the American people of their voting rights by unlawfully trying to retain the office of the presidency, contrary to the expressed will of the American people when they elected Joe Biden as their president.
The six ideologically conservative members of the Supreme Court decided to conjure up presidential immunity seemingly out of thin air.
Smith presented evidence to a grand jury in Washington, including countless Republican witnesses, and the grand jury concluded there was ample evidence to indict Trump. As that case headed for trial, Trump’s lawyers filed a motion claiming that presidents have absolute immunity against prosecution for crimes they commit while in office. Notwithstanding that there is no law, no appellate court precedent and no constitutional support for Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, the six ideologically conservative members of the Supreme Court decided to conjure up presidential immunity seemingly out of thin air, essentially bestowing the potential power of lawlessness on American presidents. Notably, the Supreme Court did not conclude that Trump committed no crimes. Instead, it returned the case to Judge Chutkan to determine which of Trump’s crimes should enjoy immunity from prosecution and which should not.
While that litigation was ongoing, Trump won the 2024 election. But because the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel is of the opinion that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, Smith was compelled to dismiss Trump’s cases.
So where does that leave us? It’s worth remembering that the allegations in the Trump D.C. indictment include five areas of alleged criminality: the baseless, bad-faith court challenges to the 2020 election results filed by Trump’s lawyers; Trump’s pressure campaign on state elected officials (recall Trump’s recorded request to “find 11,780 votes”); the fake elector scheme; Trump’s pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden’s election win; and, when all else failed, a call to his supporters on Jan. 6 to march to the U.S. Capitol, “fight like hell” or “you won’t have a country anymore,” and “stop the steal,” a not-so-thinly-veiled command to stop the certification of the election results.
Is there any hope for accountability of Trump in the future? I fear the answer is… not much.
But there is one point of light amid the darkness. There are two ways for a judge to dismiss a criminal case: “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.” With prejudice means that a case can never be re-brought and prosecuted in the future. Without prejudice means the case can be re-indicted and prosecuted in the future. Smith asked Chutkan to dismiss the case “without prejudice,” and she did so.
But the justice gods giveth and the justice gods taketh away. There are several ways Trump and his incoming attorney general can snuff out the possibility of his criminal cases being re-brought in the future. First, Trump could direct his attorney general to file a motion asking Chutkan to reconsider her earlier dismissal and modify it to a dismissal with prejudice. Thankfully, there are some substantive and procedure hurdles that would make such a request an uphill climb.
Second, because the Supreme Court has ruled that a president can exercise his core constitutional functions — like issuing pardons — not only with immunity from prosecution, but with a strict prohibition against even investigating a president’s motive or intent in exercising said power, Trump could simply pardon himself for all crimes he committed during his lifetime, a cradle-to-the-grave self-pardon. That is the kind of quasi-royal power on which the Supreme Court has already put its stamp of approval.
Third, in the event he opts not to go the self-pardon route, Trump could simply negotiate a quid pro quo deal with Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. He could resign at some point during his presidency and shuffle off to Mar-a-Lago to play golf, and have Vance pardon him for all crimes he may have committed, a la President Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon.
And don’t even get me started on how the statute of limitations provides that someone has to be prosecuted within five years of the date of the offense or the case is time-barred. That is another possible impediment to prosecuting Trump, assuming he serves his entire term.
Assuming Trump also escapes criminal responsibility for the 34 felony guilty verdicts delivered by a New York jury for crimes he committed before he was elected the first time around, that will mean Trump would avoid accountability for crimes he committed before, during and after serving as president.
Are we still inclined to recite the hollow mantra that, in America, no man is above the law?
Glenn Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., is an NBC News and BLN legal analyst.
The Dictatorship
U.S. military carries out new strikes in Iran, says ceasefire continues
The U.S. military on Wednesday carried out new strikes in Iran, shooting down four attack drones and targeting a ground control station. The military stated both the drones and ground facility posed a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. official said in a statement to MS NOW.
The official said the ceasefire agreement remains in effect and described the U.S. military actions as intended to maintain the ceasefire.
“Today, U.S. Central Command forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones that posed a threat around the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. forces also struck an Iranian ground control station in Bandar Abbas that was about to launch a fifth drone. These actions were measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire,” the official said in the statement.
At least three explosions were heard east of Bandar Abbas, a port city in Iran along the Strait of Hormuz, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing Iranian state media. The explosions briefly activated Bandar Abbas’ air defense systems, Fars News Agency, a media outlet affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported early Thursday local time.
The latest strikes come amid an unstable ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran.
Speaking at a Cabinet meeting at the White House earlier Wednesday, President Donald Trump said Iran wants “very much to make a deal” but “they haven’t gotten there,” adding that Iran was “negotiating on fumes.”
“We’re not satisfied with it, but we will be,” Trump said. “Either that or we’ll have to just finish the job. Their navy is gone … their air force is gone, everything’s gone. And they’re negotiating on fumes. But we’ll see what happens. Maybe we have to go back and finish it, maybe we don’t.”
On MondayU.S. Central Command said in a statement that the U.S. carried out “self-defense” strikes on missile launch sites and boats in southern Iran in order “to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces.” That same day, Trump said in a Truth Social post that negotiations with Iran were “proceeding nicely!”
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.
Carla Herreria is an editor for MS NOW’s breaking news and liveblog team. She was previously a senior assignment editor at HuffPost.
The Dictatorship
Trump’s plan for white South Africans is straight out of the KKK’s playbook
President Donald Trump’s racist policy of welcoming white South Africans while excluding refugees from other countries is back in the spotlight after his administration raised its refugee ceiling — to bring in more white people.
Trump increased the refugee admissions ceiling by 10,000 for this year to allow more white South Africans to come into the country, a signed presidential determination reviewed by Reuters showed.
The document, dated May 21, said white South Africans of Afrikaner ethnicity face an emergency situation due to the “incitement of racially motivated violence” by the government and political parties in the majority-Black country.
The document, found herecites an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” that doesn’t actually exist. Trump and his allies have pushed false claims that a “white genocide” is occurring, but South Africa’s government — and even advocacy groups representing the country’s white Afrikaner minority — have rejected the claim.
Reuters reported that the increased refugee limit is now 17,500 — and that only three non-South African refugees have been admitted into the U.S. this fiscal year. Reuters previously reported that the administration wanted to bring in 4,500 white South Africans immigrants per montha number that I noted mirrors the number of white German refugees the Ku Klux Klan wanted to welcome to the United States a century ago — when its members were popularizing xenophobic slogans like “America First” and launching campaigns of racist terror against people of color.
It’s noteworthy here that white supremacists have latched on to racist conspiracy theories, such as the “replacement theory,” saying that there is some kind of plot to replace white Americans with nonwhite people, particularly foreigners. In reality, what’s actually underway is the exact opposite: a government effort to deport nonwhite people in America — including people who have lived in the U.S. for years — while Trump’s regime takes steps to import white people, and as some conservatives fret over white birth rates.
It’s hard to imagine the klan itself wouldn’t approve of this policy.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
The Dictatorship
Democrats warn companies against aligning with Trump’s Jim Crow resurgence
Amid the Republican Party’s ongoing assault on Black peopleDemocrats are borrowing a tactic from 20th-century civil rights activists and putting corporate America on notice.
On Tuesday, the Congressional Black Caucus said it sent a letter to more than 200 companies and business organizations, urging them to oppose the GOP’s push to eliminate majority-Black districts after the Supreme Court’s Callais v. Louisiana decision, which effectively permitted racist gerrymandering.
In 2021, the companies sent a letter to Congress in support of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, saying the legislation was needed to guard against racial discrimination and voter suppression. Signees on that letter included AppleDell and Googlewhose executives have since aligned themselves with President Donald Trump’s regime.
“Many corporations spoke clearly during that moment about the importance of protecting democratic participation, defending civil rights, and advancing racial equity,” the CBC’s letter reads. “Today, those commitments are being tested.”
The letter presses the companies to issue statements condemning the GOP’s push to dilute Black voters’ power, as well as information on corporate political spending. The pressure campaign follows the CBC’s public call for student-athletes to boycott public universities in states where Republicans have taken action against majority-Black voting districts.
Meanwhile, 16 Democratic state attorneys general sent a letter last week to three donor-advised funds urging them to lift restrictions on donations to the Southern Poverty Law Centeran anti-racist organization known for helping law enforcement officials take down white supremacist extremist groups. The charity-based arms of Fidelity and Vanguard, as well as a company called Donor Advised Charitable Giving, imposed the restrictions after the Trump administration’s baseless indictment of the SPLC. I recently wrote about how Trump allies have used these charges to downplay and outright deny the existence of racist extremismas well as spread lies about liberals being responsible for groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
This scrutiny of corporate America and its acquiescence to the MAGA movement has me thinking of a conversation I had with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the “Morning Joe” crew last week. During our chat, Sharpton warned that companies that align themselves with Trump’s war on diversity do so at their own risk, because Democrats could take steps in the future to hold these companies to account.
These letters show a strong interest among Democrats in pressuring companies that appear to be propping up, or placating, the rise of what many people see as Jim Crow 2.0.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words









