Special Counsel Jack Smith filed the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the charges related to Trump’s role in the January 6th insurrection earlier today. MeidasTouch and Legal AF host Ben Meiselas, along with Legal AF host and former Chief Assistant District Attorney of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, discussed an analyzed this filing. We are providing this breaking news report ad-free exclusively to our subscribers here at Meidas+. If you appreciate our reporting, please consider joining us as a paid member now.
Reading from the motion, Meiselas highlighted the DOJ’s reasoning, which emphasized that this dismissal was driven solely by constitutional constraints rather than the merits of the case. Smith underscored that the charges brought against Trump were among the strongest ever assembled, but the Department is bound by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpretation, which deemed prosecution unconstitutional for an elected president. The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the case could theoretically be refiled in the future, though this outcome is seen as unlikely.
Agnifilo lamented the necessity of the dismissal, calling it a “shame” while recognizing its inevitability. She explained that Trump’s ability to pardon himself renders the likelihood of re-prosecution minimal. Agnifilo noted the unusual cooperation from Trump’s defense team, speculating they are confident Trump will protect himself from any legal consequences.
The dismissal follows the controversial creation of a new legal doctrine by the Supreme Court—absolute immunity for Trump—which effectively shielded him from ongoing federal and some state prosecutions. The Court’s decisions ultimately delayed the case’s resolution to the point of dismissal, resulting in a complete and total travesty of justice.
Special Counsel Smith’s motion to dismiss reflects deep reluctance, with language underscoring the gravity of Trump’s crimes and the strength of the government’s evidence. Agnifilo characterized Smith as a “prosecutor’s prosecutor,” someone guided by integrity and public service, who made the difficult but necessary decision to follow the law even when it meant dismissing a landmark case.
This development raises further questions about the broader implications for other ongoing cases, including those in New York and Georgia. Agnifilo speculated that the OLC’s decision might influence state prosecutions, although its immediate impact remains unclear.
Meiselas and Agnifilo called the outcome a stark example of the flaws in the justice system, where constitutional provisions designed to protect the presidency are leveraged by individuals accused of undermining democracy. While this decision concludes Trump’s federal prosecution in the January 6th case, the hosts emphasized the importance of ongoing legal analysis and accountability as Trump’s presidency resumes.
Watch the full breaking news report above and consider joining as a paid member of the Meidas+ Substack now.
Share this post