How Trump Got Away With It, According to Jack Smith

How Trump Got Away With It, According to Jack Smith

As the countdown begins for Donald Trump’s anticipated return to the White House, Special Counsel Jack Smith has sent a chilling notification to the American public: there is substantial evidence that could potentially lead to the imprisonment of the soon-to-be President.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department unveiled its final report detailing Smith’s allegations that Trump unlawfully attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The document indicates that prosecutors had gathered sufficient evidence to secure a conviction if Trump’s electoral victory had not stalled the case’s progression. “Had it not been for Mr. Trump’s election and his impending return to the presidency, the office determined that the available evidence would have been adequate to achieve and uphold a conviction at trial,” the report states.

This report serves as a significant criticism of an individual poised to reclaim presidential authority. Although many findings were already known—Trump’s attempts to cling to power post-2020 election have been extensively reported in the media, documented in films, and scrutinized during major congressional hearings—this report adds another layer of detail regarding how the President-elect challenged American democracy and the government he is set to lead once again.

Smith’s team conducted interviews with over 250 individuals, secured grand jury testimony from more than 55 witnesses, and acknowledged that the findings from the House committee investigating the Capitol attack represented merely “a small part of the office’s investigative record.” In the comprehensive 137-page report, Smith outlines Trump’s actions aimed at obstructing a peaceful transfer of power, detailing efforts that ranged from pressuring state and federal officials to invalidate election results to inciting a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Smith charges Trump with attempting to disrupt the certification of Biden’s election “through fraud and deceit,” which included urging “violence against perceived adversaries” in the lead-up to the insurrection.

“As detailed in the initial and subsequent indictments, when it became evident that Mr. Trump had lost the election and legitimate avenues for contesting the election results had failed, he turned to a series of criminal actions to cling to power,” the report elaborates.

The case encountered distinctive hurdles, stemming not only from the investigation of a former President but also from Trump’s relentless influence. Smith discussed legal battles surrounding executive privilege, the Supreme Court’s July decision regarding presidential immunity, and Trump’s intimidation tactics. “Mr. Trump leveraged his significant presence on social media to issue extrajudicial comments—occasionally of a threatening nature—about the case, compelling the Office to seek litigation to maintain the integrity of the proceedings and prevent witness intimidation.”

Furthermore, the case was plagued by a public perception of political bias and unfolded amidst an election season. “Mr. Trump’s declaration of his presidential candidacy while two federal criminal investigations were ongoing created an unprecedented challenge for the Department of Justice and the courts,” Smith noted.

Prosecutors also contemplated charging Trump with a violation of the Insurrection Act—an antiquated law that prohibits rebellion against the U.S. government—but ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that Trump intended to incite the “full scope” of violence on January 6.

Many individuals who participated in the violent acts may soon escape legal repercussions. Trump has indicated that one of his initial actions upon taking office on January 20 will be to pardon most, if not all, defendants charged in connection with the Capitol attack. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he recently stated to TIME. “Maybe in the first nine minutes.” Conversely, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance remarked on Fox News that those who “committed violence” on January 6 “obviously” should not receive pardons.

Trump’s legal team was given a draft of the report over a week ago and has fought against its release, labeling it a smear campaign intended to “disrupt the presidential transition.” They are also attempting to block the publication of a separate report by Smith concerning Trump’s handling of classified documents. On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, temporarily halted its release and scheduled a hearing for Friday to discuss the matter.

Regardless, Trump appears unlikely to face repercussions. Smith dismissed both cases after Trump secured the 2024 election, citing a Justice Department policy that forbids the prosecution of sitting presidents. Due to separate agency regulations, he was required to submit a final report—one for each prosecution—to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has pledged to publish both documents.

However, with Trump’s inauguration just days away, the report may have little practical impact beyond contributing to the historical narrative. For Trump, who has a remarkable ability to evade accountability, even this is perceived as a victory. “Jack is a clueless prosecutor who failed to bring his case to trial before the Election, which I won by a landslide,” Trump shared on his social media platform. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”