Ron Chapman is a Federal Defense Attorney and Author of Unraveling Federal Criminal Investigations. He’s spent a career beating the DOJ’s most difficult cases for his clients

Did you know that the Government created a cell phone company just to capture the calls of United States Citizens?

DOJ Policy Memos Require Dismissal of Trump’s Criminal Cases

The Department of Justice has long maintained a policy that shields a sitting president from criminal prosecution. Grounded in separation-of-powers principles, this stance argues that prosecuting or jailing a sitting president could destabilize the executive branch by giving judicial authority undue influence over presidential power. In essence, it’s a policy that views the presidency as too important to be hampered by legal entanglements—even if those entanglements involve criminal allegations.

According to DOJ memos dating back to 1973 and reaffirmed in 2000, a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted; these protections cover both federal and state actions while the president is in office. That means if Trump wins another term, Jack Smith’s federal cases could be shelved as long as Trump holds office, and state prosecutors may also find themselves stalled by similar arguments of executive immunity.

As for the state cases? Well, they technically aren’t covered by presidential immunity, but if Trump’s team has its way, those too might get put on ice. Expect a showdown in the courts if states push forward.

And the Civil Cases?

Civil cases are a different beast. Two Supreme Court cases—Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Clinton v. Jones—offer a guide, suggesting that civil suits not tied to official duties can move forward. Trump’s appeals could drag things out, but these cases won’t disappear without a fight. The courts, if they get their way, will need to balance letting justice run its course without disrupting the executive branch.

As Trump’s legal rollercoaster speeds along, it’s clear that these cases aren’t just about the man himself. They’re testing the boundaries of executive power, the resilience of the judiciary, and the Constitution’s ability to handle a former—and possibly future—president in unprecedented legal hot water. It’s a high-stakes game with major implications for the American legal landscape, so keep your popcorn handy.

Will Jack Smith Be Fired?

Trump, no stranger to removing perceived obstacles, has hinted that he may take swift action against Special Counsel Jack Smith if he regains power. And while a sitting president technically doesn’t have the direct authority to dismiss a special counsel, Trump could certainly bring in a new Attorney General tasked with reevaluating Smith’s mandate. The new AG could, in turn, dismiss Smith—or “encourage” his resignation.

Alternatively, Trump could let the DOJ’s policy on presidential immunity do the heavy lifting, essentially rendering Smith’s cases moot. But if Trump decides to go for a clean slate, removing Smith wouldn’t just be a strategic move—it would serve as a powerful statement, asserting Trump’s control over his legal fate and sending a clear message about his administration’s stance on these prosecutions. Expect that decision to make waves, raising questions about the independence of the DOJ and setting the stage for what could be a monumental showdown between the executive branch and the federal justice system.

As Trump’s potential second term looms, these scenarios are not just hypothetical—they’re likely steps in an ongoing political chess match. With Jack Smith at the center, the DOJ’s immunity doctrine hanging in the balance, and Trump poised to reassert himself, the legal and constitutional stakes have never been higher.

Inside the Courtroom: The Legal Fights Shaping America's Future Elections

Lets go one by one

Falsifying Business Records in New York
Trump has a date with Judge Juan Merchan in Manhattan for what might be his most mundane scandal: falsifying business records. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has secured a conviction on this Class E felony, and Trump’s facing potential prison time.
DOJ Policy demands that state prosecution not interfere with a President’s duties. In this case the transition would ceritanly be included in that analysis. Merchan will certianly kick this Trumpian can down the road.
Election Interference in Georgia
Down in Georgia, things are a little juicier. Fulton County DA Fani Willis slapped Trump with an election interference indictment, but controversy quickly followed, involving Willis’s relationship with the special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. Although Judge Scott McAfee gave the case a green light if Wade stepped down, Trump’s team has thrown a wrench in the works with an appeal.
If the Georgia Appellate court does not outright dismiss the case, which it likely will - a stay will be granted pending Donald Trump’s presidency and its unlikely the case will be resumed.
Federal Classified Documents Case
Trump’s federal classified documents case has had more turns than a soap opera. Special Counsel Jack Smith charged him over documents allegedly taken from the White House. Enter Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who made a splash by tossing out some charges on a technicality involving the appointments clause.
The case is now back on appeal but pursuant to DOJ policy it will not be prosecuted by Jack Smith who is likely to be fired.
Federal Election Interference
The federal election interference case is a saga of its own, largely centered on the boundaries of presidential immunity. After lower courts ruled against immunity, the Supreme Court chimed in, setting a new standard that effectively shields a president from criminal acts “connected” to official duties, even those with a little personal benefit. Jack Smith is working to tighten the case around this immunity ruling, but with Judge Tanja Chutkan presiding, there’s bound to be courtroom fireworks.

Civil Cases Against Trump Likely to Resume

Defamation Case with E. Jean Carroll
E. Jean Carroll’s civil case resulted in an $83 million defamation judgment against Trump. Carroll’s accusations of a 1990s assault and Trump’s less-than-graceful public denials make this one of the more personal battles in Trump’s legal lineup. Trump’s posted a bond and appealed and given the limited impact that an appeal would have on Trump’s ability to carry out duties- it will continue but given the posture of the NY Appeals Court the case will be dismissed.
Financial Fraud in New York
New York Attorney General Letitia James took aim at Trump’s finances, alleging that he pumped up his assets to score sweet deals with lenders. The judge awarded a whopping $450 million in damages and ordered Trump’s businesses into liquidation—pending an appeal, of course.
Letitia James issued a very defiant statement after Trump was elected suggesting that she is going to continue to pursue her case. However, principles of federalism dictate that she cannot interfeare. Moreover, given the Appellate Court posture in this case as well - it will likely be dismissed. Notably the New York judges were shocked that this victimless offense was persued