The Department of Justice (DOJ), under the Biden-Harris administration, is reportedly considering the end of federal criminal cases against President-elect Donald Trump, according to sources familiar with the discussions, per NBC News.
This shift marks a significant departure from the DOJ’s pre-election stance, during which Special Counsel Jack Smith actively pursued cases tied to January 6 and alleged mishandling of classified documents.
However, following Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, DOJ officials are allegedly reconsidering the feasibility of these cases.
Sources reveal that DOJ officials recognize the near impossibility of concluding either of these high-profile cases before Trump assumes office. The legal complications involved would likely extend the litigation process for months or even years, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. With Trump set to reenter the White House, the DOJ reportedly sees little purpose in continuing these proceedings before his inauguration.
Although the DOJ appears inclined to discontinue its cases, the ultimate decision rests with Special Counsel Smith. This development has left questions about the fate of gathered evidence, the status of co-defendants, and whether Smith will compile a report, as special counsels typically do.
As sources indicate, Smith must deliberate over the most prudent path forward, considering potential implications on future prosecutions and ongoing legal strategies.
Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team is preparing its response, intending to fully resolve the federal and state cases against the former president. One individual close to Trump’s legal discussions suggests that they are exploring ways to dismiss all pending charges. The goal appears to be securing a comprehensive legal strategy to nullify the cases, particularly as Trump prepares to take office.
This potential DOJ shift could significantly impact four active legal cases involving Trump. These include New York’s hush money case, the Georgia election interference case, and two federal cases overseen by Special Counsel Smith. The cases, in various stages of legal proceedings, were initiated based on separate charges and allegations.
In New York, Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records in connection with payments to Stormy Daniels. The Georgia case, focused on alleged election interference, has been on hold pending a December hearing to address motions about potential prosecutorial conflicts.
On the federal front, Smith’s election interference case, linked to January 6, is also awaiting judicial decisions, specifically regarding Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. Additionally, a federal case involving the alleged mishandling of classified documents faces delays due to legal disputes surrounding Smith’s appointment.
Trump has publicly stated his intent to end federal cases against him upon re-entering office. Reports indicate that he also plans to dismiss Smith from his position as special counsel on his first day in office, which would directly impact the January 6 and classified documents cases.
Trump’s lawyers are strategizing on additional motions to resolve the remaining state-level cases against him, including New York Attorney General Letitia James’s civil suit over alleged business record falsifications.
Several factors, including Trump’s plans to seek appeals and challenges to penalties imposed by state courts, will shape the outcomes of these cases. Trump’s legal team aims to appeal a substantial $455 million fine imposed by Justice Arthur Engoron in New York.
In a previous ruling, an appellate judge expressed skepticism over the fine’s size, suggesting potential reductions or even reversals on appeal. Similarly, in the hush money case led by New York judge Juan Merchan, Trump’s attorneys plan to appeal any unfavorable rulings.
This case, tied to payments made before the 2016 election, remains subject to judicial review. Notably, even some analysts, including CNN’s Elie Honig, have criticized the case as an example of selective prosecution.
Legal experts suggest that ending the DOJ’s involvement in these cases could also ease tensions within the judicial system. Some commentators argue that federal prosecutions targeting high-ranking politicians can blur the line between legal accountability and political motivations, emphasizing the need for judicial impartiality.
Trump’s substantial vote count in states traditionally dominated by Democratic candidates may also signal voter discontent with politically charged legal actions.