Washington has recently seen a report submitted by special counsel Jack Smith, who asserted that his team stood firm in upholding the rule of law while probing President Donald Trump’s attempts to reverse the outcomes of the 2020 election. In this long-awaited document, released on a Tuesday, Smith expressed his unwavering support for bringing forth criminal charges that he believes would have resulted in a conviction, had voters not re-elected Trump to the presidency.
According to the report, “The core of Mr. Trump’s unlawful actions was deception — knowingly misleading claims of election fraud.” It highlights how Trump employed these falsehoods as a means to subvert a critical function of the federal government that is essential to the democratic process in the United States.
This report, which arrives close to Trump’s scheduled return to office on January 20, spotlights his frantic but unsuccessful campaign to maintain power in the wake of the 2020 elections. With the prosecution now rendered impossible due to Trump’s re-election, this document is anticipated to be the Justice Department’s final account of a troubling episode in American history that posed a risk to the peaceful transfer of power—a fundamental aspect of democracy for generations. It complements various indictments and reports that have already been disclosed.
In his initial response on Tuesday via his Truth Social platform, Trump declared his “total innocence” and criticized Smith, referring to him as a “lamebrain prosecutor” who failed to advance his case before the election. Trump emphasized, “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”
Back in August 2023, Trump was indicted on charges related to his efforts to overturn the election. However, progress on the case was impeded by appeals, and ultimately it was significantly limited by a conservative Supreme Court ruling that established for the first time that former presidents possess broad immunity against criminal prosecution for their official activities.
Although Smith attempted to salvage the indictment, his team fully dismissed it in November based on a long-standing Justice Department policy that maintains sitting presidents cannot be subject to federal prosecution. The report declares, “The Department’s stance that the Constitution forbids the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is absolute and does not hinge on the severity of the crimes alleged, the strength of the Government’s evidence, or the merits of the legal actions, which our office fully supports.” It continued, “Had it not been for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the available evidence would have sufficed to achieve and uphold a conviction at trial.”
Early Tuesday, the Justice Department forwarded the report to Congress following a judge’s decision to reject a defense effort aimed at obstructing its publication. A separate section of the report that delves into Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, which form the basis of an additional indictment against him, will be kept confidential for the time being.
While most aspects of Trump’s attempts to negate the election have already been widely acknowledged, this document includes a thorough evaluation from Smith about his investigation for the first time. It also provides a defense against claims made by Trump and his supporters suggesting that the inquiry was politically motivated or that he collaborated with the White House—a notion Smith dismissed as “laughable.”
“Although we were unable to bring the cases we charged to trial, I think it’s important that our team firmly upheld the rule of law,” Smith remarked in a letter addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland that was included with the report. “I believe the standard we set for others to pursue justice, irrespective of personal risks, holds significance.”
Smith also elaborated on the difficulties encountered during the investigation, including Trump’s claims of executive privilege, which hindered efforts to gather evidence from witnesses. This led prosecutors to engage in secret legal battles prior to charges being filed.
Another major hurdle arose from Trump’s willingness to leverage his influence and social media presence to intimidate witnesses, court officials, and prosecutors, prompting prosecutors to request a gag order to shield potential witnesses from harassment, according to Smith.
Smith stated, “Mr. Trump’s tendency to intimidate and harass during the investigation was not new, as evidenced by his actions throughout the charged conspiracies.” He continued, “A crucial element of Mr. Trump’s behavior related to the charges in the Election Case was his habitual use of social media—specifically Twitter—to publicly criticize and aim to influence state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to endorse false claims regarding a stolen election or who actively resisted his scheme.”
Additionally, Smith clarified his team’s rationale behind deciding not to charge Trump with incitement, partly due to First Amendment concerns, and opted against insurrection charges due to the complex nature of prosecuting a sitting president—a charge that had never been recorded as having been prosecuted before.
