As Donald Trump gears up for his much-anticipated return to the White House, Special Counsel Jack Smith has delivered a stark warning to the American populace: there’s significant evidence that could potentially result in the imprisonment of the soon-to-be President.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department released its conclusive report, outlining Smith’s claims that Trump illegally sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The report suggests that prosecutors had amassed enough evidence to secure a conviction had the case not been stalled by Trump’s electoral victory. “Had it not been for Mr. Trump’s election and his anticipated return to the presidency, the office concluded that the evidence available would have been sufficient to achieve and uphold a conviction at trial,” the document states.
This report serves as a major indictment against an individual poised to reclaim the highest office in the land. While many of the findings have been widely reported—Trump’s attempts to retain power after the 2020 election have been thoroughly examined in the media, chronicled in documentaries, and scrutinized during significant congressional hearings—this report offers fresh insights into how the President-elect challenged American democratic principles and the government he is set to lead once more.
Smith’s team interviewed over 250 people, obtained grand jury testimony from more than 55 witnesses, and acknowledged that the findings from the House committee investigating the Capitol attack represented only “a small part of the office’s investigative record.” In the detailed 137-page report, Smith outlines Trump’s attempts to obstruct a peaceful transfer of power, detailing actions that included pressuring officials at both state and federal levels to overturn election results and 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 involved inciting “violence against perceived adversaries” 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 legitimate means 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 considerable influence. Smith addressed legal complexities surrounding executive privilege, the Supreme Court’s ruling in July concerning presidential immunity, and Trump’s tactics of intimidation. “Mr. Trump utilized his extensive social media presence to make extrajudicial comments—sometimes threatening in nature—about the case, which compelled the Office to pursue legal action to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and prevent witness intimidation.”
Additionally, the case was marred by public perceptions of political bias and occurred during an election season. “Mr. Trump’s announcement of his presidential candidacy while two federal criminal investigations were ongoing presented an unprecedented challenge for the Department of Justice and the courts,” Smith stated.
Prosecutors also considered charging Trump under the Insurrection Act—a centuries-old law banning rebellion against the U.S. government—but ultimately decided there was insufficient evidence to prove that Trump intended to incite the “full scope” of violence on January 6.
Many individuals who took part in the violent events may soon evade legal consequences. Trump has signaled that one of his first actions upon taking office on January 20 will be to pardon most, if not all, individuals charged in relation to the Capitol attack. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he recently told TIME. “Maybe within 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 be pardoned.
Trump’s legal team received a draft of the report over a week ago and has actively fought against its release, describing it as a smear campaign designed to “disrupt the presidential transition.” They are also attempting to block the release of a separate report by Smith concerning 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 matter.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Trump will face any repercussions. Smith dismissed both cases 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 required to file a final report—one for each prosecution—to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has promised to publish both documents.
However, with Trump’s inauguration just around the corner, the report may have limited practical implications beyond adding to the historical record. For Trump, who has an uncanny ability to evade accountability, even this limited critique feels like 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!!!”
