WASHINGTON (AP) — Special prosecutor Jack Smith stated in a highly anticipated report released on Tuesday that his team “defended the rule of law” while investigating President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and that he fully supports his decision to file criminal charges, which he indicated would have resulted in a conviction if voters had not returned him to the White House.
PUBLICIDAD
“The common thread in all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deception—false and knowing claims of electoral fraud—and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to undermine a fundamental federal government function crucial to the democratic process of the United States,” stated the document.
PUBLICIDAD
The report, which was made public a few days before Trump returns to the White House on January 20, once again focuses attention on his frantic but failed effort to cling to power in 2020.
With the charges dropped thanks to the Republican’s electoral victory, it is expected that the document will be the final chronicle from the Department of Justice about a dark chapter in American history that threatened to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, which has been a cornerstone of democracy for centuries, and complements the accusations and reports already published.
How did Trump react to the Department of Justice report?
Trump responded early Tuesday morning with a post on his Truth Social platform in which he asserted he was “completely innocent” and described Smith as “an inept prosecutor who couldn’t bring his case to trial before the election.” “The voters have spoken!” he added.
Trump was accused in August 2023 of working to overturn the election, but the case was delayed by appeals and ultimately significantly limited by a conservative-majority Supreme Court that held for the first time that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Although Smith tried to save the accusation, the team completely dismissed it in November due to the long-standing Department of Justice policy that sitting presidents cannot face federal criminal proceedings.
“The Department’s opinion that the Constitution prohibits the continuation of the impeachment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not depend on the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the government’s evidence, or the merits of the accusation, which the Office fully supports,” the report recounts. “In fact, if it were not for Mr. Trump’s election and his imminent return to the presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction in a trial.”
The Department of Justice transmitted the report to Congress early on Tuesday after a judge refused to block its publication.
A separate volume of the report, focused on the accumulation of classified documents by Trump at Mar-a-Lago, actions that formed the basis of a separate indictment, will remain secret for now.
Although most of the details of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results are already well known, the document includes for the first time a detailed assessment by Smith of his investigation, as well as the special prosecutor’s defense against Trump’s and his allies' criticisms of the politicization of the investigation or of collaborating with the White House, an idea he deemed “ridiculous.”
"“Although we were unable to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe that the fact that our team defended the rule of law matters,” Smith wrote in a letter to the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, attached to the report. “I believe that the example our team set for others to fight for justice regardless of personal costs matters.”
The special prosecutor also outlined the challenges he faced in his investigation, including Trump’s claim of executive privilege in an attempt to prevent witnesses from providing evidence, which forced prosecutors to engage in secret legal battles before charges were filed.
Another “significant challenge” was the “ability and willingness (of Trump) to use his influence and his social media followers to attack witnesses, courts, prosecutors,” which led the prosecution to request a restraining order to protect potential witnesses from harassment, Smith wrote.
“A fundamental component of Mr. Trump’s behavior underlying the charges in the Electoral Case was his pattern of using social media —at that time, Twitter— to publicly attack and try to influence state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to support false claims that the election had been stolen or otherwise resisted complicity in Mr. Trump’s scheme,” he added.