Donald Trump would likely have faced conviction over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election if not for his victory in the 2024 presidential race. This assertion comes from special counsel Jack Smith in a detailed report released by the Justice Department on Tuesday, shedding new light on Trump’s controversial actions and their legal ramifications.
Smith’s investigation, launched in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, culminated in a report submitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Smith’s findings highlight a stark conclusion: Trump’s re-election effectively shielded him from prosecution.
The Legal Implications of Trump’s Victory
In his report, Smith states unequivocally:
“The department’s view that the constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind.”
He further added:
“Indeed, but for Mr Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”
This constitutional barrier underscores the challenges faced by the Justice Department in holding Trump accountable, despite substantial evidence presented in Smith’s report.
Trump’s Actions Under the Microscope
Smith’s report meticulously details Trump’s actions during his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. These include:
- Pressuring state officials to overturn results.
- Assembling alternate slates of electors.
- Encouraging supporters to protest against certified outcomes.
Notably, Smith observed a pattern in Trump’s efforts, stating:
“Significantly, he made election claims only to state legislators and executives who shared his political affiliation and were his political supporters, and only in states that he had lost.”
The report also highlighted Trump’s reliance on “demonstrably and, in many cases, obviously false” claims about the 2020 election, which served as a foundation for his pressure campaign and contributed to the events of January 6.
Missed Opportunity for Prosecution?
While much of the evidence in the report has been made public previously, new details reveal the prosecution’s internal deliberations. Prosecutors considered charging Trump under the Insurrection Act for inciting the January 6 attack but ultimately concluded that such charges carried significant legal risks. They cited insufficient evidence to prove Trump intended the full scope of violence witnessed that day.
Charges against Trump included conspiring to obstruct the election certification, defraud the United States, and deprive voters of their rights. Yet his 2024 presidential victory rendered these charges moot due to Justice Department policy.
Trump’s Response
In a characteristically combative post on his Truth Social platform, Trump dismissed Smith as a “lamebrain prosecutor” who failed to bring his case to trial before the election. He has consistently characterized the investigations as politically motivated, designed to undermine his campaign and presidency.
Smith, however, directly addressed such accusations in his report, writing:
“My office had one north star: to follow the facts and law wherever they led. Nothing more and nothing less. To all who know me well, the claim from Mr Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”
Prosecutorial Challenges and Legacy
Smith acknowledged the constraints imposed by Justice Department policies and recent Supreme Court rulings that expanded presidential immunity. These factors, coupled with Trump’s political resurgence, ultimately led to the abandonment of charges against him.
In a letter to Garland, Smith reflected on the broader significance of his team’s work:
“While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters.”
What’s Next?
The report also references a second, undisclosed section detailing allegations of Trump’s mishandling of sensitive national security documents post-presidency. Legal proceedings in this case are ongoing.
As Trump prepares to return to the White House, the report raises questions about accountability, constitutional safeguards, and the resilience of American democracy.
For now, one thing remains clear: the shadow of his past actions will continue to loom over his presidency.
Bill Gates Is Buying Up These 2 Stocks for 2025. Should You?