Donald Trump, who was elected US President for a new term, could have been convicted of meddling in the 2020 election if he had not returned to power, according to a report by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, cited by The New York Times. According to the document, the US Constitution prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president, even if the investigation has sufficient evidence to bring a guilty verdict.
The report states that the investigation focused on Trump's attempts to influence the results of the 2020 election, in which he was defeated by Joe Biden. In particular, it focused on Trump's actions in the post-election period, including attempts to overturn the results of voting in individual states and pressure on officials. The special counsel noted that the collected materials indicate possible violations of the law, but that a trial is impossible against a person in office.
The situation has caused a wide public outcry and division in American society. Some consider Trump's actions in 2020 an attempt to undermine democratic institutions, while others argue that his actions were within the law. Nevertheless, Jack Smith's report has increased tensions around Trump's new term and the possible consequences for his political career.
Trump's opponents point out that his return to the presidency allows him to avoid legal consequences. At the same time, they emphasize that the question of the head of state's responsibility for actions committed before taking office remains unresolved in the American legal system. The constitutional provision granting immunity to the sitting president has long been controversial, especially in the context of cases involving serious charges.
Trump’s supporters, by contrast, argue that the investigation against him is politically motivated and aimed at undermining his legitimacy. They insist that any actions Trump has taken since the 2020 election have been legal and aimed at protecting the electoral process.