WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to Donald Trump’s inauguration, a report from special counsel Jack Smith has highlighted the various actions taken by Trump to maintain his influence following the conclusion of his first term as president. This report, released early Tuesday, draws renewed attention to previously detailed allegations that have emerged from various criminal indictments and investigative findings and serves as a defense against claims by Trump and his allies that the legal actions were purely politically motivated.
One significant point made by Smith is a refutation of Trump’s narrative surrounding having been “completely exonerated.” Although Trump may not ultimately go to trial regarding his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which was won by Joe Biden, Smith emphasizes that this does not imply Trump’s innocence. After Trump’s 2024 election victory, Smith’s team opted to withdraw a related case and another regarding the mishandling of classified documents due to a long-standing Justice Department guideline preventing the prosecution of a sitting president. While Trump’s legal representation argues this dismissal reflects his exoneration, Smith clarified that this was a strict adherence to DOJ policy and not a reflection of Trump’s legal standing. Smith suggested that had the circumstances been different, Trump could have been found guilty.
Moreover, Smith reiterated that the policy regarding presidential indictments does not pertain to the severity of the alleged violations or the strength of evidence. This stance mirrors that of Robert Mueller, who also communicated that his findings did not exonerate Trump during his investigation into Russian electoral interference.
In a period marked by recurring personal attacks from Trump and his supporters, who accused Smith of bias or collaboration with the Biden administration, Smith ultimately defended his integrity and the decisions made by his team in a formal response. In a letter accompanying the report, he firmly dismissed any notion that politics influenced his investigations and praised his team for their dedication amid significant scrutiny and threats. Smith underscored that their commitment to the law and justice was commendable and that their remarkable resilience throughout the legal process would not be forgotten.
The report arrives at a pivotal time when Trump is preparing to assume office again, indicating intentions to pardon individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots, which were aimed at obstructing the certification of the 2020 election results. Trump has attempted to reframe the events of that day, including making false claims about the rioters being unarmed. In light of these developments, Smith emphasized the importance of maintaining the rule of law and highlighted the value of his team’s efforts, even if they could not bring charges to trial.
The prosecution’s dismissal also leaves open questions regarding the extent of presidential immunity from criminal charges. The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, determined that former presidents hold absolute immunity for official acts within their constitutional responsibilities, but that immunity does not extend to private actions. Smith’s team criticized this ruling, suggesting it prioritizes the president’s boldness in office over concerns about potential misconduct.
The report further examines why Trump was not charged with insurrection despite and highlights internal discussions regarding possible charges under the Insurrection Act. Although some legal experts argue the Capitol riot fits the definition of an insurrection, Smith’s team deemed pursuing such charges legally risky due to the complexity and rarity of applying this statute to someone trying to hold on to power from within the government. Given the lack of precedent, the team decided to focus on other viable charges, as they could not substantiate evidence of Trump’s outright intent to incite a full-scale insurrection.
Despite not bringing insurrection charges, Smith’s report does hold Trump accountable for encouraging the violence on January 6. The document accuses Trump of rallying “an angry mob” to disrupt the congressional certification process, leveraging the ensuing chaos in his favor. The report features stark imagery of the clashes outside the Capitol and quotes from both law enforcement officers and rioters, reflecting the tense atmosphere and the conception that they were acting on Trump’s direction. Notably, one rioter expressed a belief that they had been invited by Trump himself, indicative of the pervasive influence he wielded over the group that day.
