In a recent report, Special Counsel Jack Smith asserted that his team firmly upheld the rule of law in their examination of President Donald Trump’s attempts to reverse the 2020 election results. The report, eagerly awaited and released on a Tuesday, highlighted Smith’s unwavering support for the criminal charges he pursued, positing that they would have led to a conviction had the electorate not reinstated Trump as President.
Smith’s report indicates a central theme of deception in Trump’s actions, emphasizing how knowingly false accusations of election fraud were weaponized to undermine a core government function essential to American democracy. As the report arrives just ahead of Trump’s return to the presidency on January 20, it brings renewed attention to the Republican’s desperate yet unsuccessful maneuvers to retain power following his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. This document is poised to serve as the concluding narrative from the Justice Department regarding a tumultuous period in American history that jeopardized the long-standing tradition of peaceful power transitions, further reinforcing previous indictments and findings.
Responding to the report, Trump took to his Truth Social platform early on Tuesday, declaring his “total innocence” and criticizing Smith as a “lamebrain prosecutor” who failed to bring the case to trial before the upcoming election. He asserted that “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”
Trump faced indictment in August 2023, accused of attempting to overturn the election. However, the case was delayed amid appeals and was significantly limited by a Supreme Court ruling, which newly acknowledged that former presidents possess expansive immunity from criminal prosecution regarding their official duties. According to Smith’s report, this ruling left numerous unresolved legal challenges that would likely necessitate another review by the Supreme Court to advance the case.
While Smith aimed to preserve the indictment, the prosecution was eventually dropped in November due to long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the federal prosecution of sitting presidents. The report outlines this stance, reinforcing that the Constitution categorically prevents ongoing indictment and prosecution of a president, unaffected by the severity of the charged crimes or the strength of the evidence. The Office concluded that, absent Trump’s election victory and the prospect of his return to the presidency, the evidence collected was ample to achieve a conviction in a trial setting.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Justice Department sent the report to Congress after a judge declined a defense attempt to prevent its public disclosure. Another segment of the report, addressing Trump’s accumulation of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago—which serves as the basis for a separate indictment—will remain confidential for the time being.
The report does not hold back in detailing the extensive measures Trump undertook to invalidate the election results, labeling his actions as an “unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results” to hold onto power. It chronicles his attempts to compel the Justice Department to support his personal interests, as well as his involvement in recruiting fake electors in states Biden won. Furthermore, it mentions his incitement of a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to obstruct the congressional confirmation of the election results, aiming to exploit the chaos to further delay the process.
Additionally, it captures the tumultuous interaction between Trump and his Vice President Mike Pence, highlighting the tensions surrounding Trump’s requests for Pence to reject the certification of the electoral count on January 6, 2021. Just before leaving the White House for his speech at the Ellipse, Trump reached out to Pence, who indicated his intention to publicly announce that he lacked the authority to comply with Trump’s directive, prompting Trump’s frustration and a subsequent alteration of his speech to target Pence.
While many of the report’s findings about Trump’s election challenge efforts are already known, it also represents a fresh, comprehensive evaluation by Smith regarding his investigation and a rebuttal to allegations from Trump and his supporters that the inquiry was politically motivated or in collusion with the White House, which Smith deemed “laughable.”
In correspondence with Attorney General Merrick Garland included in the report, Smith highlighted the import of his team’s commitment to the rule of law despite not being able to bring the charged cases to trial. He remarked on the significance of the precedent set for others to pursue justice regardless of personal repercussions.
Moreover, Smith elaborated on the various hurdles faced during the investigation, particularly noting Trump’s claims of executive privilege that complicated witness testimonies, resulting in contentious sealed court proceedings prior to formal charges. A further challenge emerged from Trump’s propensity to utilize his social media influence to intimidate witnesses, which led prosecutors to seek a gag order aimed at shielding potential witnesses from abuse.
Smith emphasized that Trump’s use of intimidation tactics was not isolated to the investigation, reflecting a pattern evident during the conspiracies under scrutiny. A crucial element of Trump’s behavior linked to the charges in the election case encompassed his frequent public attacks via social media against officials, judges, and election workers who resisted participating in his narrative of a stolen election.
The special counsel also provided nuanced insights into his office’s prosecutorial choices, explaining their decision against charging Trump with incitement partly due to First Amendment concerns, as well as refraining from pursuing insurrection charges due to uncertainties surrounding prosecuting a sitting president, an offense that had not previously been adjudicated.
