As Donald Trump’s much-anticipated return to the White House draws near, Special Counsel Jack Smith has issued a stark warning to the American populace: significant evidence exists that could potentially result in the imprisonment of the soon-to-be President.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department released its final report outlining Smith’s claims that Trump unlawfully sought to overturn the 2020 election results. The report suggests that prosecutors have collected enough evidence to secure a conviction, had Trump’s electoral success not interrupted the legal proceedings. “Had it not been for Mr. Trump’s election and his forthcoming return to the presidency, the office concluded that the evidence available would have been sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the report notes.
This report represents a significant critique of a figure poised to regain presidential power. While much of the information was already in the public domain—Trump’s efforts to retain power following the 2020 election have been widely covered in media, depicted in films, and examined during prominent congressional hearings—this document adds further depth to the narrative of how the President-elect challenged the foundations of American democracy and the government he is preparing to lead once more.
Smith’s team conducted interviews with over 250 individuals, gathered grand jury testimony from more than 55 witnesses, and acknowledged that the findings from the House committee probing the Capitol attack constituted only “a small segment of the office’s investigative record.” In the detailed 137-page report, Smith outlines Trump’s attempts to obstruct a peaceful transition of power, detailing actions that spanned from pressuring both state and federal officials to overturn election results to inciting a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Smith accuses Trump of trying to disrupt the certification of Biden’s election “through fraud and deceit,” which included inciting “violence against perceived opponents” leading up to the insurrection.
“As outlined in the initial and subsequent indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and genuine avenues for contesting the results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal actions to maintain his grip on power,” the report elaborates.
The case faced unique challenges, not only due to the investigation of a former President but also because of Trump’s relentless influence. Smith discussed legal disputes regarding executive privilege, the Supreme Court’s decision in July concerning presidential immunity, and Trump’s intimidation tactics. “Mr. Trump utilized his vast social media presence to issue extrajudicial comments—sometimes threatening in nature—about the case, compelling the Office to seek legal remedies to uphold the integrity of the proceedings and prevent witness intimidation.”
Additionally, the case was hampered by public perceptions of political bias and unfolded during an election season. “Mr. Trump’s announcement of his presidential candidacy while two federal criminal investigations were active posed an unprecedented challenge for the Department of Justice and the judiciary,” Smith pointed out.
Prosecutors also considered charging Trump under the Insurrection Act—an outdated law that forbids rebellion against the U.S. government—but ultimately determined there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Trump intended to incite the “full scope” of violence on January 6.
Many participants in the violent events may soon evade legal consequences. Trump has suggested that one of his first acts upon taking office on January 20 will be to pardon most, if not all, individuals charged in connection with the Capitol riot. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he recently told TIME. “Maybe in the first nine minutes.” In contrast, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance stated on Fox News that those who “committed violence” on January 6 “obviously” should not receive pardons.
Trump’s legal team received a draft of the report over a week ago and has fought against its publication, accusing it of being a smear campaign intended to “disrupt the presidential transition.” They are also working to block the release of a separate report by Smith regarding Trump’s handling of classified documents. On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, temporarily halted its publication and scheduled a hearing for Friday to discuss the issue.
Nevertheless, it appears that Trump is unlikely to face any repercussions. Smith indicated both cases would be dismissed after Trump secured the 2024 election, citing a Justice Department policy that prohibits the prosecution of sitting presidents. Due to separate agency regulations, he was mandated to submit a final report—one for each prosecution—to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has committed to releasing both documents.
However, with Trump’s inauguration just around the corner, the report’s practical impact may be limited to shaping the historical narrative. For Trump, who has a remarkable talent for evading accountability, even this situation is viewed as a triumph. “Jack is a clueless prosecutor who failed to bring his case to trial before the Election, which I won by a landslide,” Trump expressed on his social media platform. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”
