In what feels to many of us like a crushing blow to justice, Special Counsel Jack Smith moved Monday to dismiss both of President Donald Trump’s federal criminal charges — the 2020 election subversion case in Washington, D.C., and the secret documents/obstruction case of justice/espionage case in Florida. Judge Tanya Chutkan immediately dismissed the DC case, and a dismissal of the documents case will almost certainly follow soon. These democracy-destroying developments make it clear that, at least during the four years a president is in office, is above the law – the functional equivalent of a king.

How did we get here?

Let’s look at the DC case first. In a four-count indictment, Trump was charged with crimes he allegedly committed while president, including conspiring to deprive the American people of their right to vote by unlawfully attempting to retain the office of president in violation of the express will of the president. The American people when they elected Joe Biden as president.

Smith presented evidence to a grand jury in Washington, including numerous Republican witnesses, and the grand jury concluded there was enough evidence to indict Trump. As that case went to trial, Trump’s lawyers filed a motion arguing that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit while in office. Despite there being no law, no appeals court precedent, and no constitutional support for Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, the six ideologically conservative members of the Supreme Court decided to invoke presidential immunity seemingly out of nowhere, essentially potential power of lawlessness. about American presidents. Particularly the Supreme Court it didn’t conclude that Trump has committed no crimes. Instead, the case was sent back to Judge Chutkan to determine which of Trump’s crimes should enjoy immunity from prosecution and which should not.

While that trial was underway, Trump won the 2024 election. But because the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel believes a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, Smith was forced to dismiss Trump’s cases.

So where does that leave us? It is worth remembering that the allegations in the Trump DC 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 false electoral system; Trump pressures Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden’s election victory; and, when all else failed, a call to his supporters on January 6 to march to the US Capitol, “fight like hell” or “you won’t have a country anymore” and “stop stealing,” a non- the thinly veiled order to halt the certification of the election results.

Is there any hope for Trump’s accountability in the future? I’m afraid the answer is… not much.

But there is one bright spot in the darkness. There are two ways in which a judge can dismiss a criminal case: ‘with prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice’. Prejudice means that a case can never be brought and prosecuted again in the future. Without prejudice means the case can be charged and prosecuted again in the future. Smith asked Chutkan to dismiss the case “without prejudice,” and she did so.

But the gods of righteousness give and the gods of righteousness take away. There are several ways Trump and his new attorney general can eliminate the possibility of his criminal cases being refiled in the future. First, Trump could direct his attorney general to file a motion asking Chutkan to reconsider her previous dismissal and change it to a dismissal with prejudice. Fortunately, there are some substantive and procedural hurdles that make such a request an uphill climb.

Second, because the Supreme Court has ruled that a president can exercise his core constitutional functions—such as pardons—not only with immunity from prosecution, but with a strict ban on even to research a president’s motive or intent in exercising that power, Trump could simply pardon himself for all the crimes he committed during his lifetime, a cradle-to-grave self-pardon. That’s the kind of quasi-royal power that the Supreme Court has already endorsed.

Third, if Trump chooses not to go the self-pardon route, he could simply strike a quid pro quo deal with newly elected Vice President J.D. Vance. He could resign at some point during his presidency and go to Mar-a-Lago to play golf, and have Vance pardon him for any crimes he may have committed, like President Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon.

Not to mention how the statute of limitations stipulates that someone must be prosecuted within five years of the date of the crime or the case is time-barred. That is another potential hurdle to Trump’s prosecution, assuming he serves out his entire term.

Assuming Trump also escapes criminal responsibility for the 34 guilty verdicts handed down by a New York jury for crimes he committed for He was elected for the first time, meaning Trump would avoid responsibility for the crimes he committed before, during and after his presidency.

Are we still tempted to recite the empty mantra that in America no one is above the law?