Donald Trump would have been convicted in 2020 for his failed attempt to cling to power had he not won last year’s U.S. presidential election, according to the special counsel who investigated him.
Jack Smith’s report, detailing the team’s findings on Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy, was released by the Justice Department early Tuesday.
After the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, Smith was appointed special counsel to investigate President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His investigation culminated in a detailed report submitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
In it, Smith argued that he believed the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Trump at trial had Trump’s success in the 2024 election not made it impossible to continue the prosecution. I am doing it.
“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits continued indictment and prosecution of the President is categorical and does not reflect the seriousness of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s case, or the Department’s full support. “This does not discount the merits of the prosecution,” Smith wrote.
“Certainly, but given Mr. Trump’s election and impending return to office, authorities assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”
President Trump was impeached for inciting the January 6th riot, charged by a Congressional committee with participating in a “multipart conspiracy,” and ultimately charged by the Department of Justice with “conspiracy to defraud” the United States, among other charges. He was indicted on two counts.
Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
After his release, President Trump called Smith “a dumb prosecutor who couldn’t get a trial before the election” in a post on his website TruthSocial.
He has portrayed these incidents as politically motivated attempts to damage his campaign and political campaign. He also correctly calculated that he could override the law by staging a spectacular political reversal and regaining the White House.
The first volume of Mr. Smith’s report meticulously outlines Mr. Trump’s alleged actions, including pressuring state officials, recruiting alternate electors, and encouraging his supporters to protest the election results.
Smith writes: “Importantly, he only appealed to state legislators and administrators who share his political affiliations and supporters, and only in the states he lost.” That is to say.”
The report highlights President Trump’s persistence in spreading “clearly and in many cases patently false” claims about the 2020 election. These became the basis of his pressure campaign and contributed to the January 6 attack.
Much of the evidence cited in the report has been previously published. But the bill includes several new features, including one under which prosecutors were considering charging Trump with inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol under a U.S. law known as the Insurrection Act. Contains details.
Prosecutors ultimately argued that such charges posed legal risks and that there was insufficient evidence that President Trump intended the “full spectrum” of violence during the riot, and that there was insufficient evidence that President Trump intended the “full range” of violence during the riot and that It concluded that Congress’ attempts to block certification of the 2020 election were unsuccessful.
The indictment charges Trump with conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election, defraud the United States of accurate election results, and deprive American voters of their right to vote.
Although Smith’s office determined that charges against some of the co-conspirators accused of helping President Trump carry out the plan may have been justified, the report does not suggest that prosecutors’ final conclusions. It is said that this has not been reached. Several of Trump’s former lawyers were previously identified as co-conspirators mentioned in the indictment.
Mr. Trump and his legal team characterized the report as a “political blowback” aimed at disrupting the presidential transition, and waged a lengthy legal battle to prevent its publication.
Smith, who resigned from the Justice Department last week, directly addressed accusations by Trump and his allies that the investigation was politically motivated. He insists his team acted solely on facts and the law.
Smith writes: “My office has had one north star, and that is to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead, nothing more, nothing less. For everyone who knows me well, as a prosecutor Mr. Trump’s claims that my decisions were influenced or dictated by the Biden administration or other political actors are, in a word, ludicrous.”
Smith acknowledged that the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents was a factor that ultimately led to the failure to prosecute after Trump’s victory in 2024. The report also cited a Supreme Court ruling expanding presidential immunity that complicated the case.
However, in a letter to Garland attached to the report, Smith wrote: We believe the example our team sets for others in fighting for justice regardless of personal sacrifice is important. ”
The second section of the report details Smith’s lawsuit accusing President Trump of illegally retaining classified national security documents after he left the White House in 2021. The Justice Department has promised not to make that part public while legal proceedings against two Trump associates charged in the case continue.
Trump, who will be sworn in as the 47th president on Monday, was unconditionally removed from office last week on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments during the 2016 election.
Reuters contributed to this report
