Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman, who served as Congressman Adam Schiff's top impeachment bulldog against former President Donald Trump during his first term, is quite upset Special Counsel Jack Smith is being forced into irrelevancy.
Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman *immediately* went on CNN to cry about the special counsel moving to dismiss all charges against President Trump in the Biden-Harris administration's witch hunt pic.twitter.com/fm4gY3hJXf
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 25, 2024
It's Over: Jack Smith Files Motion to Dismiss Bogus Election Interference Charges Against Trump
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 25, 2024
https://t.co/4W6aanoKKv
"The American People re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again. Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law. The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country," Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung said about Smith's dismissal Monday.
Contrary to Goldman's claim, the Supreme Court did not "put Donald Trump above the law." Instead, the Court upheld presidential immunity for all presidents conducting official acts. As Townhall reported in June:
The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 - citing Article II of the U.S. Constitution - that former President Donald Trump in his official capacity, and more broadly the office of the United States presidency, has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party," the opinion states.
"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," the opinion continues. "At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity."