Evidence to Convict Trump Was Clear, Says Former Special Counsel Jack Smith
Former special counsel Jack Smith has delivered a clear and powerful conclusion: the evidence to convict Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election was undeniable.
Smith’s 137-page report, released less than a week before Trump is set to begin his second term as president, provides a comprehensive defense of his investigation, addressing the legal and political challenges he faced. It also serves as a detailed response to critics who questioned the probe’s legitimacy.
Despite significant obstacles — including resistance from the Supreme Court — Smith pointed to the ultimate turning point: Trump’s victory at the ballot box. According to Justice Department policy, the reelection of a president shields them from prosecution while in office. As Smith stated, this policy marked the end of any potential legal action.
The report is one of two major pieces of Smith’s work. The second volume, which examines Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and possible obstruction of justice after his first presidency, remains unpublished.
The implications of these legal battles continue to resonate, raising pressing "what if?" questions about the impact of the 2024 election on accountability and justice.
Key Takeaways from Smith’s Report
Trump’s Election Win Sealed His Immunity
Smith’s findings echo an earlier investigation into Trump’s actions, underscoring the Justice Department’s longstanding policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.
“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical,” Smith wrote. This stance holds regardless of the severity of the alleged crimes, the strength of the evidence, or the merits of the case.
The conclusion highlights the legal constraints that allowed Trump to avoid prosecution, even in cases where investigators believed they had a strong case.
As Trump prepares for another term, Smith’s report serves as a sobering reminder of the intersection between politics, law, and the pursuit of accountability in American democracy.
Here’s a revised version of the article for improved clarity and engagement:
Trump’s Election Shielded Him From Conviction, Says Special Counsel Jack Smith
“Were it not for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the evidence was sufficient to secure a conviction at trial,” wrote former special counsel Jack Smith in his final report on Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Smith’s investigation, launched in early 2023, faced significant criticism and time constraints. Many on the left questioned why Attorney General Merrick Garland waited until November 2022 to appoint a special counsel. Still, Smith made it clear that the clock — and Trump’s looming 2024 election — left little room for maneuvering.
While Smith stopped short of guaranteeing a conviction, he confidently stated there was enough evidence to meet the prosecutorial standard.
“It’s the same conclusion any prosecutor must reach before bringing an indictment: that there’s enough evidence for a jury to convict,” explained CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. “He’s not making a bold prediction about how a jury would decide, just stating the evidence met the threshold.”
Smith Pushes Back on Trump’s Claims of Exoneration
Trump, who has long maintained his innocence regarding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, has repeatedly claimed he was exonerated after the charges were dropped. His legal team even cited this claim in a letter to Attorney General Garland, attempting to prevent the release of Smith’s report.
But Smith was unequivocal in his rebuttal.
“Mr. Trump’s letter asserts that the dismissal of criminal charges signifies his ‘complete exoneration.’ That is false,” Smith wrote.
This language echoes the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller, who in his 2019 report on alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, similarly stopped short of declaring Trump innocent.
“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mueller wrote at the time, adding that his investigation had found sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice but declined to proceed.
Smith also noted that Trump’s attorneys failed to dispute any specific factual claims in the report. “Their letter to Attorney General Garland did not identify any factual objections to the draft report they reviewed prior to its release,” he wrote.
Supreme Court Challenges Loomed Large
While Smith expressed confidence in the strength of his case, he acknowledged the significant legal challenges posed by the Supreme Court.
“Given the unprecedented facts and the complex legal issues involved, this case carried inherent litigation risks,” Smith wrote.
However, after conducting a comprehensive review of the law, Smith concluded that the charges were well-supported and would likely have survived legal scrutiny — barring any changes to the law at the time of the indictment.
Smith’s report serves as both a justification of his investigation and a stark reminder of the legal and political hurdles that shielded Trump from prosecution. As Trump prepares for another term in office, questions about accountability and justice remain at the forefront of American politics.
Does this version address your needs for clarity and engagement? Let me know if there are any additional tweaks you’d like!
Here’s a rewritten version of the article with enhanced clarity and engagement:
Legal Changes Played into Trump’s Favor
The legal landscape evolved slowly — but decisively — in Donald Trump’s favor.
Special counsel Jack Smith, aiming to expedite the process, asked the Supreme Court in December 2023 to weigh in on the question of presidential immunity. However, the court declined to act immediately. Instead, it waited for an appeals court ruling, which Trump lost, before hearing oral arguments in April 2024.
By July, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that presidents enjoy broad immunity for official actions taken while in office. This decision significantly narrowed the evidence Smith could use, forcing him to file a superseding indictment in August.
Unspoken in Smith’s report was the fact that three of the six justices in the majority were appointed by Trump during his first term — the same term now shielding him from full accountability.
The immunity ruling also allowed Trump to delay sentencing in his New York fraud conviction related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, ensuring it wouldn’t occur before the 2024 presidential election.
Charging Trump Was Justified, Smith Said
Smith emphasized that the decision to prosecute Trump wasn’t based on his right to free speech or “exaggeration or rough-and-tumble politics.” Instead, the charges stemmed from actions far beyond lawful speech.
Trump and his unindicted co-conspirators, Smith wrote, “went well beyond speaking their minds or contesting the election results through our legal system.”
Over more than 20 pages, Smith defended the unprecedented prosecution, stating it was necessary to protect “the integrity of the United States’ electoral process” and safeguard “the exceptional tradition of peaceful transitions of presidential power.”
Smith dismissed the notion that impeachment could serve as an adequate alternative to criminal accountability. Trump, who was impeached for inciting the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, was acquitted by the Senate.
“Even if Mr. Trump had been convicted by the Senate, political accountability in the form of impeachment would not have been sufficient, especially given the scope of Mr. Trump’s offenses and the substantial federal interests they targeted,” Smith wrote.
The special counsel highlighted the gravity of Trump’s role in the Capitol riot. While more than 1,500 individuals have been charged for their actions that day, Smith argued Trump’s “relative culpability weighed heavily in favor of charging him, as the individual most responsible for what occurred at the Capitol.”
Others Avoided Charges Thanks to Trump’s Win
Smith’s report also pointed out that Trump’s reelection shielded not only him but also other unindicted co-conspirators. At least one person involved in the investigation — whose name was not disclosed — was referred to a U.S. attorney’s office for unrelated criminal conduct.
Smith’s Take on Election-Year Investigations
The report included a section addressing how the Justice Department should handle investigations during election years — a topic of growing controversy in recent decades.
Smith acknowledged the delicate balance required, particularly when the subject of an investigation is actively seeking reelection.
“Given the timing of the investigation and Mr. Trump’s reelection bid,” Smith wrote, “the former president’s actions would be criticized by one constituency or another, regardless of which path the investigations took.”
Smith’s report underscores the challenges of pursuing accountability for a former president running for office while navigating a politically divided landscape.
mith Defends Swift Action and Provides a Roadmap for Future Prosecutors
Special counsel Jack Smith explained that he relied on both DOJ policy and his experience in the department’s Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section to move “swiftly” with his investigation. While DOJ policy typically discourages bringing new charges in the months before an election, Smith clarified that this policy does not apply to cases that are already in court, as his was.
“Whether it is during an election year or at any other time, the duty of prosecutors after indictment is to litigate their cases fully and zealously,” the report states.
In doing so, Smith effectively laid out a detailed framework for future prosecutors facing similar circumstances. His articulation of DOJ policies, particularly in writing, may prove pivotal in future election-related investigations.
Smith’s Rebuke of Trump’s Legal Team
Smith also took aim at Trump’s attorneys, accusing them of spreading a “variety of false, misleading, or otherwise unfounded claims” to attack the integrity of the charges and investigation.
This harsh criticism was especially notable because one of the lawyers Smith rebuked was Todd Blanche, who had been selected by Trump to serve as the president-elect’s deputy attorney general. Should Blanche take that role, he could eventually oversee future special counsel investigations — including those that might challenge Trump.
Smith’s sharp comments were delivered in a January 7 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, which was subsequently made public alongside the final report. The letter was a direct response to an angry missive from Trump’s legal team, which argued that the report should never be released, calling Smith an “out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor.”
A Convergence of Special Counsels' Findings
The timing of Smith’s scathing letter to Trump’s lawyers was striking, as it coincided with a separate report from special counsel David Weiss. Weiss, who led the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden, also issued his final report, accusing President Joe Biden of making “false” and “wrong” statements about the fairness of the probe. Biden had claimed the investigation was politically motivated and unfair, in part to justify his decision to pardon his son.
A New Era: No Active Special Counsels
For the first time since 2016, the Justice Department no longer has any active special counsel investigations. The long-running saga of high-profile probes, which seemed endless at times, has officially come to a close — for now.
However, the legacy of these investigations, including Smith’s final report, will likely continue to shape how future election-year probes are conducted, ensuring special counsels remain a pivotal element of the U.S. legal and political landscape.
.jpg)
0 Comments