Why Wasn't Trump Charged for Sedition Within a Year of the Capitol Riot?

The decision by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and subsequent actions taken by the Supreme Court have left many questioning why former President Donald Trump was not charged with sedition following the January 6th Capitol riot. This article delves into the timeline of events, the actions taken by the Justice Department, and the role of the Supreme Court in this process.

Slow DOJ Response and the Role of the Jan 6 Committee

The initial response from the DOJ in the aftermath of the January 6th Capitol riot was significantly delayed. Instead of focusing on the high-profile figures and those in the inner circle of the rioters, the DOJ prioritized lesser-known individuals. This delay was exacerbated by the creation of the Jan 6 Committee, a select committee formed by the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate the events of that day. The committee's investigation, aimed at understanding and preventing future similar events, was a major focus for over a year.

Jack Smith and the Challenges in Building a Strong Case

Jack Smith, chosen to lead the case against Trump, faced a daunting task. Despite his efforts to expedite the case, he encountered significant obstacles. Trump's legal team appealed multiple times, and his strategy to "kick the can down the road" delayed the proceedings. Trump's legal challenges included:

Challenging the appointment of Jack Smith as the special prosecutor. Making numerous legal arguments and requesting multiple recusals from the court. Calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider the appointment of Jack Smith.

These legal maneuvers stretched the timeline, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court's involvement and further delay.

The Supreme Court's Role in Granting Presidential Immunity

The Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) sparked a debate about the extent of presidential immunity. In a controversial decision, the Court granted Trump complete immunity for his actions, no matter how criminal they might be. This ruling effectively prevented any federal charges from proceeding. The Court argued that as a sitting president, Trump was immune from prosecution for his official actions. While some argued that this immunity should only apply during the term of office, others saw it as a long-term protection.

Interplay Between Presidential Duties and Candidate Actions

A murky area in the legal proceedings was the distinction between actions taken as president and those taken as a candidate. The Supreme Court ruling added another layer of complexity by suggesting that certain actions, though illegal, could be shielded from prosecution due to presidential immunity. This created a situation where the court had to differentiate between presidential duties and personal actions, further complicating an already contentious case.

Electoral Politics and the Future of the Case

The timing of the case is tied to the November 2022 mid-term elections. With the outcome of the election, the situation became increasingly problematic for bringing charges against Trump. Following the election, Trump secured another term as President, which would have allowed him to dismiss any federal cases against him, including the sedition case and the Florida documents case. This move highlights how political considerations can influence legal decisions.

The Call for Congressional and Judicial Reforms

The aftermath of the January 6th incident has prompted calls for both political and legal reforms. Many argue that the current system is too lenient when it comes to holding politicians accountable for criminal actions. Suggestions for reform include:

Amending the Constitution to explicitly address the issue of presidential immunity. Reforming the appointment process for special prosecutors to prevent undue delay. Establishing clear guidelines for distinguishing between presidential duties and personal actions.

Some also believe that former President Biden should have used his presidential powers to address these issues, including through pardons or legal actions.

Conclusion

The failure to charge Trump with sedition within a year of the Capitol riot reflects a complex interplay of political and legal factors. The Supreme Court's decision to grant presidential immunity, despite calls for reform, has postponed any potential prosecution. The road to justice for those affected by the events of January 6th remains uncertain. The case serves as a reminder of the challenges in balancing the need for accountability with the constraints of political and legal systems.