The proof to convict Donald Trump was definitely there.
That’s the clear and compelling takeaway from former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report regarding Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which ultimately led to the January 6, 2021, assault on the US Capitol.
In his 137-page report, released just days before Trump is set to be inaugurated for a second term, Smith passionately defends his investigation and counters the many critics he faced along the way.
Despite encountering significant political and legal obstacles—particularly from the Supreme Court—Smith noted that his biggest setback was when Trump won re-election. With Trump soon to be protected from prosecution as president, following Justice Department guidelines, Smith concluded that the battle was effectively over.
There’s also a second volume summarizing the other half of Smith’s work, which deals with what many consider a solid but now-closed case against Trump regarding his handling of classified documents after leaving office and obstruction of justice. However, this part hasn’t been released yet.
Just like all the legal victories Trump has had in recent years, it feeds into the larger “what if?” narrative surrounding the 2024 election.
Let me share the key takeaways from Smith’s report with you:
Trump’s victory in the election was a game changer.
This marks the second occasion where a special counsel looking into Trump has highlighted that, according to Justice Department policy, the former president—who may also run again—won’t be tried by a jury.
As Smith pointed out, “The Department firmly believes that the Constitution prevents the ongoing indictment and prosecution of a sitting President, regardless of how serious the alleged crimes are, how strong the evidence might be, or the validity of the case, which we fully support.”
He added, “In fact, if it weren’t for Mr. Trump winning the election and potentially returning to the presidency, we felt there was enough valid evidence to secure a conviction in court.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland has been criticized from the left for not appointing a special counsel to look into Trump until November 2022, with Smith only starting his investigation early the following year. It wasn’t an easy case either. Yet, the special counsel hinted that with the 2024 election approaching, he was running out of time and choices.
That said, Smith didn’t promise a conviction; he just stated that there’s sufficient evidence.
CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig noted, “Any prosecutor would reach the same conclusion before filing an indictment—that there’s enough evidence for a jury to convict. He’s not making any grand predictions about what a jury might decide in a hypothetical situation.”
Smith is making it clear that just because the charges against Trump were dropped, it doesn’t mean he’s off the hook.
Since the events of January 6, 2021, Trump has maintained that he did nothing wrong. He even plans to pardon many of the individuals who were arrested or charged for their roles in the Capitol riot that day. After the charges were dismissed, Trump claimed he was fully exonerated, and his legal team went so far as to include that claim in a letter to the attorney general, attempting to prevent the report from being released.
But Smith firmly disagrees with that assertion.
In his response, Smith pointed out, “Mr. Trump’s letter suggests that having his criminal cases dismissed means he’s completely exonerated. That’s not true.”
This isn’t the first time Trump and the public have encountered such language.
Back in 2019, former special counsel Robert Mueller investigated claims of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. He found enough evidence to potentially charge Trump with obstruction of justice but ultimately chose not to do so. Mueller noted, “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
He added that if they had found clear evidence showing Trump didn’t obstruct justice, they would have said so.
Now, even though Trump has pleaded not guilty to federal charges and has labeled the investigation a “witch hunt,” his legal team hasn’t challenged any of the facts laid out in Smith’s report. According to Smith, a letter from Trump’s attorneys to Attorney General Garland “doesn’t point out any specific factual objections” regarding the draft report they reviewed before it was made public.
The Supreme Court really threw a wrench in the works.
Smith believes he could have secured a conviction, but he also admits something pretty clear: the Supreme Court played a crucial role in the outcome.
“With the unique circumstances and the range of legal issues at play, our office knew there would be some litigation risks, just like any case this complicated,” Smith explained.
“Still, after thoroughly reviewing the law, we felt confident that the charges were solid and would hold up against legal challenges—unless there was a change in the law before the indictment,” he continued.
But then the law evolved. Gradually. And it worked out in Trump’s favor.
In December 2023, Smith tried to expedite things by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of presidential immunity.
The court, however, wasn’t rushing. They turned down his request, waited for an appeals court decision (which Trump lost), and didn’t even hear arguments until April. It wasn’t until July that the conservative majority declared that presidents have significant immunity for their actions while in office. It took until August for Smith to make another move with a new indictment that restricted the evidence he could present.
What Smith didn’t mention is that three of the justices who voted in that 6-3 majority were appointed by Trump during the same term when he was granted this immunity.
On top of that, Trump managed to use this immunity ruling to push back his sentencing date before the presidential election after being found guilty in New York for fraud related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
The decision to prosecute Trump was completely warranted.
Smith explained that his team wouldn’t have gone after Trump if he was simply exercising his right to free speech by participating in what could be called “exaggeration or rough-and-tumble politics.”
However, according to Smith, Trump and the unnamed co-conspirators took things much further than just voicing their opinions or disputing the election results through legal avenues when they attempted to overturn Joe Biden’s victory.
In a detailed 20-page report, Smith provided his reasoning for this historic prosecution, emphasizing that there was no other choice. He highlighted the importance of “protecting the integrity of the United States’ electoral process” and safeguarding the cherished tradition of peaceful transitions of power in the country.
Smith pointed out that impeachment is a political matter rather than a legal one. Even though Trump was impeached for inciting the January 6th riot, he was acquitted by the Senate.
He stated, “So, even if Mr. Trump had faced a conviction in the Senate, impeachment wouldn’t have served as a substitute for criminal accountability, particularly given the serious nature of Mr. Trump’s actions and the significant federal interests at stake.”
The special counsel also mentioned that over 1,500 individuals have faced charges for their involvement in the Capitol incident on January 6, making it clear that Trump shouldn’t be exempt from accountability: “Mr. Trump’s level of responsibility strongly indicated that he should be charged, as he was the person most accountable for what happened that day.”
That said, there are others who might escape federal charges because of Trump’s victory—specifically, those unindicted co-conspirators. The report mentions at least one person involved in the investigation who may have committed separate crimes and has been referred to a U.S. attorney’s office for consideration.
Smith has some ideas about how to handle investigations during election years.
In his report, Smith includes a whole section discussing how the Justice Department should navigate probes when elections are on the horizon. This topic has stirred up a lot of debate, particularly over the last ten years.
He pointed out that because of the timing of the investigation and Trump’s ongoing campaign for reelection, any actions taken would draw criticism from different groups, no matter which way the investigations went.
The special counsel mentioned that he relied on DOJ guidelines and his own background in the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, and he acted “quickly.” He noted that while DOJ policy typically avoids bringing charges close to an election, this doesn’t apply to cases that are already in progress, like his.
According to the report, “Whether it’s an election year or not, prosecutors have a duty to pursue their cases thoroughly and vigorously after an indictment.”
Basically, Smith is laying out a guide for future prosecutors. This kind of detailed explanation hasn’t been put down in writing before, so what he and his team have put together could play a significant role in upcoming elections.
Smith is standing firm on the necessity of special counsel investigations.
He didn’t hold back when addressing Trump’s legal team, calling out their “variety of false, misleading, or otherwise unfounded claims” aimed at undermining the credibility of his indictments and the whole investigation.
What makes this even more striking is that one of the attorneys Smith took aim at was Todd Blanche, who has been chosen by Trump to be the deputy attorney general. It’s possible that in that position, Blanche could oversee future special counsel probes.
Smith’s sharp criticisms were laid out in a letter to Attorney General Garland on January 7, which has now been made public. He wrote this response after receiving an intense letter from Trump’s team, claiming the report shouldn’t see the light of day because Smith is just an “out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor.”
It’s a bit shocking to see Smith call out the lawyers for the incoming president while, at the same time, another special counsel was taking down the outgoing president.
Special counsel David Weiss, who led the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden, also had something to say in his final report. He pointed out that President Joe Biden made “false” and “wrong” statements about the investigation to justify granting his son a pardon. (Biden had claimed that the probe was unfair and politically motivated.)
But here’s the kicker: for the first time since 2016, there are no active special counsels at the Justice Department. The long saga of major investigations seems to have wrapped up – at least for now.