Special Counsel Jack Smith has expressed his viewpoint in the eagerly anticipated report concerning Donald Trump’s involvement in the interference of the 2020 election, suggesting that had the president-elect not secured re-election in November, a conviction would likely have followed.
Published Tuesday morning by the Department of Justice, the comprehensive report outlines the “unprecedented criminal endeavor” led by Trump “to overturn the valid election results to maintain his authority” in 2020.
The initial volume of the report was previously kept from public view by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who subsequently refused to prolong the restriction on Monday. Meanwhile, the second volume remains under judicial order.
Trump was originally confronted with four charges: conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States; conspiracy to hinder an official process; obstruction of, or attempts to obstruct, an official process; and conspiracy against rights.
However, following Trump’s re-election victory, Smith dismissed the case—alongside another case alleging Trump mishandled classified materials—pointing to Department of Justice policy that prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president. “This conclusion does not reflect the merits or robustness of the allegations against the defendant,” Smith noted at that moment.
The extensive 137-page document acknowledges this policy, stating that had Trump not secured the 2024 presidential election, there would have been sufficient evidence for a conviction.
According to the report, “The Department maintains that the Constitution unequivocally bars the ongoing indictment and prosecution of a President, irrespective of the severity of the alleged crimes, the robustness of the Government’s evidence, or the merits of the case—elements that the Office staunchly supports.” It continues, “Indeed, had Mr. Trump not been elected and poised for a return to the Presidency, the Office determined that the evidence available would be adequate to secure and uphold a conviction in court.”
Trump had entered a plea of not guilty in these matters, though the cases were dismissed “without prejudice,” suggesting that charges could potentially be reinstated after Trump exits office.
The report wraps up with Trump’s assertion of having “total exoneration.”
“This is untrue,” the report counters. “The Department’s stance that the Constitution forbids Mr. Trump’s indictment and prosecution while he is in office is absolute and does not depend on the severity of the charges, the strength of the Government’s evidence, or the merits of the case—all of which the Office fully endorses.”
If only the Department of Justice had put as much effort into investigating the ‘irregularities’ (to put it politely) in that election – like ballot dumps in early hours, poll watchers denied access to ballot counting, counting stopped altogether in some districts late on election night, mass mail-in ballots without adequate security, etc, etc – then perhaps Smith’s services wouldn’t have been required in the first place.
