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.
A Republican congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer has dropped out of a runoff for a U.S. House in Oklahoma following reports that he had sent intimate text messages to a woman who was not his wife.
“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the last twenty four hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer, a candidate for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, said in a statement Wednesday.
“I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church, and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Washington,” he added.
President Donald Trump initially endorsed Lahmeyer, whom he called a “MAGA Warrior,” in May but withdrew his support following the controversy. Soon after, Trump endorsed Lahmeyer’s opponentMark Tedford, who now becomes the Republican nominee by default.
“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — He has always been with me, and I will always be with him,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford. Mark is Pro Trump and MAGA all the way!”
Lahmeyer, a pastor Sheridan Church in Tulsa, centered his congressional campaign around his Christian faith.
Lahmeyer dropped out of the race after the Daily Mail reported Sunday that he had exchanged numerous romantic text messages with Caitlin Simmons Key, who worked as a fundraiser for his campaign. In one text message obtained by the Daily Mail, Lahmeyer allegedly invited Key into his hotel room. Key also alleged that Lahmeyer once professed his love to her.
“There’s a real problem with the fact that he’s married and a pastor,” Key told the outlet. “There is a responsibility when you are leading people in the name of Christ to hold yourself to a higher standard.”
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
President Donald Trump has digitally signed the memorandum of understanding with Iran while at dinner in Versailles with French President Emmanuel Macron, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced Wednesday.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also digitally signed the memo, according to Sharif.
The agreement between the United States and Iran establishes a framework for negotiations aimed at permanently ending the conflict, which began when Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed a joint attack on Iran on Feb. 28.
Sharif said in a statement the agreement now goes into “immediate effect.” He noted that the first steps are for Tehran to “instantly reopen” the Strait of Hormuz and for the U.S. to “immediately lift” its naval blockade against Iran in the strait.
“The signing of this agreement at the highest level of the respective governments demonstrates the commitment of both sides to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict,” Sharif said in a statement.
Officials will hold a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland on Friday, Sharif said. A U.S. official did not respond to MS NOW’s questions on if an official document of the agreement will be released to the public.
According to the memothe U.S. and Iran have agreed to finalize a deal within 60 days, “extendable with mutual consent.” The agreement also calls for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
Despite the memo’s explicit inclusion of Lebanon, Israeli leaders and U.S. officials continue to offer conflicting views on how that will be implemented. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said Israel’s war against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah is not part of the agreement, while Netanyahu vowed to remain in “security zones” in southern Lebanon.
Iran has also reaffirmed that it would not “procure or develop nuclear weapons,” which was a central issue Trump cited when defending the conflict in Iran. Both the U.S. and Iran also agreed to discuss how Tehran will dispose of its highly enriched uranium stockpile, with supervision from the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The agreement also includes an end to the U.S.’ naval blockade against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, with a goal of restoring pre-war maritime traffic to the region.
“May this Memorandum of Understanding serve as an enduring foundation for greater understanding, mutual respect and shared prosperity for the complete region,” Shebaz said.
Emily Hung is an associate White House producer for MS NOW.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
The Dictatorship
The more Senate Republicans learn about Trump’s Iran deal, the more they don’t like it
Republicans started the week on Capitol Hill already uneasy about President Donald Trump’s still unreleased plan to end the U.S.-Iran war.
But by Wednesday, as details of the memorandum of understanding finally began to emerge, the unease turned into outright opposition.
“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., posted online.
Cassidy, who recently lost his re-election bid to a Trump-backed primary challenger, said that under the memorandum, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.”
“Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” he added.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who is not seeking re-election, argued the memorandum falls short given the costs of the conflict.
“We’ve lost two F-18s, several other air frames, 13 people have died, several of our Middle East partners have been attacked, 365 people have been injured,” Tillis told MS NOW, adding that the the U.S. had spent “$100 billion has been spent since the first kinetic strike.”
“I need more than 14 [bullet] points,” he said.
He later added that anyone who “is gushing over it being a great plan, I think, have insufficient information. Anybody complaining that it’s a bad plan, have insufficient information.”
According to a senior U.S. official, the memorandum — signed by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf — outlines a list of commitments as the two sides kick off 60 days of negotiations on a final deal.
In addition to the U.S. ending its naval blockade and the Iranians reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the memorandum calls for the U.S. to take steps to “terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
It calls for the U.S. to work with other Middle East partners to “develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” And the MOU says that “Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.”
In particular, the $300 billion proposal is the source of GOP angst — even from some of the president’s fiercest defenders.
“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told reporters. “I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”
His Texas colleague, Republican Sen. John Cornyn, told MS NOW, “I don’t like that part of the deal.”
He noted, “The president has the authority to negotiate,” but he added that Congress should have an “oversight role.”
While some Republicans were outright critical, many others tried a more tactful approach. Many said they were still waiting for more information.
Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., told MS NOW he needed to “see the details” before really commenting on the emerging deal. But when pressed on some of the leaked details, he said the U.S. needed to “tighten the thumb screws if we want to get the sort of concessions required to secure or remove the nuclear material.”
Asked about the $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, which is supposed to be paid for by private investments from other countries, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she was waiting to hear about a “corresponding win” for the U.S.
She said she wanted the Trump administration to present the deal to lawmakers “with an opportunity for us to actually ask those questions.”
And Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., who told reporters Wednesday that he still had not seen the final text, said, “There’s a bunch of things in here that I think we’re going to have questions about.”
“I need to hear more about it, and what the ideas are for implementation, and what the enforcement compliance mechanisms are,” he said.
To be sure, only a handful of Republicans directly praised the memorandum. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, told MS NOW he was “very happy” with the deal.
“I think it’s historic,” he said.
And Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told MS NOW he “would think” the memorandum is better than the Iran nuclear deal crafted during the Obama presidency.
But most Republicans approached by MS NOW insisted they had not yet seen the memorandum and therefore wanted to refrain from comment — even when MS NOW pressed about the topline aspects of the plan, like sanctions relief and the potential for $300 billion in assistance.
“Haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I’m sorry,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.
“I’m not going to comment if I haven’t read it,” said Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah.
“I don’t know what’s in it yet, and that’s critical,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told MS NOW. “I haven’t had a classified briefing yet, and that’s critical.”
But as Republicans learn more details about the agreement, reactions generally haven’t been positive. After spending years blasting the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal — particularly for the agreement sending “pallets of cash” to the Iranian regime — Republicans may have trouble swallowing some of the concessions in this agreement, even if it’s just a temporary deal paving the way to a larger pact in 60 days.
As Democrats have been pointing out, it will be practically more difficult for Trump to walk away from negotiations in August, with the pressure of midterms increasing and the prospect of higher gas prices more daunting.
In general, Democrats have cast the memorandum as an “abject failure,” though they’ve couched that disappointment with an insistence that they’re happy about a potential end to hostilities.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who in recent months has spearheaded a Democratic effort to curtail the president’s war powers in Iran, said it sounded like “we’re giving a lot more to get a lot less than we got in the JCPOA” — a reference to the Obama-era deal, which was formally named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told MS NOW that “by virtually every goal that President Trump announced when this war began” — from regime change to cutting off Iran’s support for its proxies in the region to collecting the country’s nuclear material — “he’s failed.”
In particular, Coons took issue with the proposed sanction relief and the $300 billion for reconstruction, likening it to “rivers of cash to help the mullahs not just rebuild Iran but to build a stronger Iran.”
“I hope — but do not expect — to hear from my many colleagues who denounced the JCPOA as funneling ‘pallets of cash’ to Iran to similarly denounce this deal,” Coons said.
Trump has left himself some latitude on the deal — at least on the potential blame for a bad agreement.
On Wednesday, as he faced questions in France over the pending MOU, he explained why he continued to present Vance as a key negotiator of the deal.
“This way, if it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said. “If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD.”
Julia Jester, Lillie Boudreaux, and Mychael Schnell contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
- Mamdani boosts congressional slate ahead of primary election
- Meta faces calls for Congress to probe scam ads targeting seniors
- Congress lays out path for final passage of housing bill
- AIPAC looms large ahead of New York primaries
- Steil pushes bill to ban lawmakers from political prediction markets
- Medication abortion restored in Missouri following court ruling
- White House confirms Vance trip to Switzerland delayed
- Special election for Swalwell’s open House seat heads to runoff
- Trump awards 3 Medals of Honor to war heroes
- Top Senate Democrat calls on FAA to reject White House arch approval pressure
-
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