****

The discussions within the Department of Justice (DOJ) have encountered a stark contrast when compared to Special Counsel Jack Smith's aggressive pre-election approach. Smith had recently intensified efforts in the election interference case against Donald Trump without concern for the electoral timeline. However, DOJ officials now accept that moving forward with any trial in the Jan. 6 case or the classified documents matter is currently unfeasible, as both are entangled in complex legal issues likely to ascend to the Supreme Court.

Trump’s upcoming inauguration has prompted DOJ officials to reconsider the viability and necessity of pursuing criminal cases against him. Former federal prosecutor and NBC News contributor Chuck Rosenberg labeled the DOJ’s newfound stance as “sensible, inevitable and unfortunate.” The unprecedented intersection of Trump’s legal challenges and his sweeping electoral success has led to multiple unresolved questions. Key among them is whether the prosecutions could resume post-presidency or if they would be rendered time-barred, the fate of gathered evidence, and the status of the additional defendants indicted for aiding Trump in hiding classified documents. Additionally, it remains uncertain whether Special Counsel Smith will issue a report, a common practice for special counsels.

Simultaneously, Trump’s legal team is strategizing on how to leverage his projected electoral win to nullify outstanding federal cases. The goal for Trump’s attorneys is clear: to have all federal and state charges dropped entirely. One strategic option includes filing motions to dismiss the Washington-based election interference charges, potentially spurring the DOJ to articulate its position on why it no longer seeks to advance the case.

Trump’s legal battles are multifaceted. His New York criminal case presents more immediate concerns, with a felony conviction and sentencing hearing slated for Nov. 26. The priority for Trump’s lawyers is to either indefinitely postpone or dismiss these proceedings. Meanwhile, the Georgia election interference case remains stalled by appeals addressing ethical concerns linked to the district attorney.

Collectively, DOJ memos and legal opinions underscore the complexity of indicting a sitting president, suggesting that impeachment is the only feasible method of addressing presidential misconduct while in office. This practical reality means Trump may never face legal repercussions for the serious federal criminal charges he has incurred. These charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy against rights related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and willful retention of national defense information, among others.

Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and NBC News contributor, expressed dismay over the situation, remarking on the dissonance between electoral victory and evasion of justice. Despite the voters’ decision, Vance underscores that conviction was never a certainty and would ultimately depend on a jury’s evaluation of the evidence. Her concerns reflect a broader unease about bypassing the fundamental American judicial principle of jury assessment.