Special counsel report says Trump would’ve been convicted for Jan. 6 ‘unprecedented criminal effort’

JANUARY 14, 2025:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith says in a report his team “stood up for the rule of law” as it investigated President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Smith says he stands behind his decision to bring criminal charges against Trump and believes the Republican would’ve been convicted had he not won the 2024 election. The report comes days before Trump is to return to the White House and focuses fresh attention on his frantic but failed effort to cling to power in 2020. The Justice Department sent the report to Congress early Tuesday (Jan. 14, 2025) after a judge refused to block its release. Trump says he’s “totally innocent.”

Story

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith said his team “stood up for the rule of law” as it investigated President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, writing in a much-anticipated report released Tuesday (Jan. 14, 2025) that he stands fully behind his decision to bring criminal charges that he believes would have resulted in a conviction had voters not returned Trump to the White House.

“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report states.

The report, arriving just days before Trump is to return to office on Jan. 20, focuses fresh attention on the Republican’s frantic but failed effort to cling to power in 2020 after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. With the prosecution foreclosed thanks to Trump’s 2024 election victory, the document is expected to be the final Justice Department chronicle of a dark chapter in American history that threatened to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, a bedrock of democracy for centuries, and complements already released indictments and reports.

Trump responded early Tuesday with a post on his Truth Social platform, claiming he was “totally innocent” and calling Smith “a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election.” He added, “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Trump had been indicted in August 2023 on charges of working to overturn the election, but the case was delayed by appeals and ultimately significantly narrowed by a conservative-majority Supreme Court that held for the first time that former presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That decision, Smith’s report states, left open unresolved legal issues that would likely have required another trip to the Supreme Court in order for the case to have moved forward.

Though Smith sought to salvage the indictment, the team dismissed it in November because of longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.

“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,” the report states. “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.”

The Justice Department transmitted the report to Congress early Tuesday after a judge refused a defense effort to block its release. A separate volume of the report focused on Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, actions that formed the basis of a separate indictment against Trump, will remain under wraps for now.

The report is unsparing in its details about schemes undertaken by Trump to undo the presidential contest, accusing him of an “unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power.”

It recounts his role in trying to force the Justice Department to use its law enforcement authorities to advance his personal interests, participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden and having directed “an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters’ violence to further delay it.”

And it documents his fallout with his vice president, Mike Pence, over Trump’s demands that he refuse to certify the electoral count before Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. It says that just before he left the White House to deliver a speech at the Ellipse that day, he called Pence one last time and that when the vice president told him that he planned to issue a public statement that he lacked the authority to do as Trump had requested, “Mr. Trump expressed anger at him. He then directed staffers to re-insert into his planned Ellipse speech some language that he had drafted earlier targeting Mr. Pence.”

Though most of the details of Trump’s efforts to undo the election are already well established, the document includes for the first time a detailed assessment from Smith about his investigation, as well as a defense by Smith against criticism by Trump and his allies that the inquiry was politicized or that he worked in collaboration with the White House — an assessment he called “laughable.”

“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,” Smith wrote in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland attached to the report. “I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters.”

The special counsel also laid out the challenges it faced in its investigation, including Trump’s assertion of executive privilege to try to block witnesses from providing evidence, which forced prosecutors into sealed court battles before the case was charged.

Another “significant challenge” was Trump’s “ability and willingness to use his influence and following on social media to target witnesses, courts, prosecutors,” which led prosecutors to seek a gag order to protect potential witnesses from harassment, Smith wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s resort to intimidation and harassment during the investigation was not new, as demonstrated by his actions during the charged conspiracies,” Smith wrote.

“A fundamental component of Mr. Trump’s conduct underlying the charges in the Election Case was his pattern of using social media — at the time, Twitter — to publicly attack and seek to influence state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to support false claims that the election had been stolen or who otherwise resisted complicity in Mr. Trump’s scheme,” he added.

Smith also for the first time explained the thought process behind his team’s prosecution decisions, writing that his office decided not to charge Trump with incitement in part because of free speech concerns, or with insurrection because he was the sitting president at the time and there was doubt about proceeding to trial with the offense — of which there was no record of having been prosecuted before.

NOVEMBER 25, 2024:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors moved Monday (Nov. 25, 2024) to dismiss the criminal charges against President-elect Donald Trump that accused him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election and to abandon the classified documents case against him, citing longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution.

The decision by special counsel Jack Smith, who had fiercely sought to hold Trump criminally accountable for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, represented the end of the federal effort against the former president following his election victory this month despite the election-related cases and multiple other unrelated criminal charges against him and is headed back to the White House.

The decision, revealed in court filings, also amounts to a predictable but nonetheless stunning conclusion to criminal cases that had been seen as the most perilous of the multiple legal threats Trump has faced. It reflects the practical consequences of Trump’s victory, ensuring he enters office free from scrutiny over his hoarding of top secret documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Smith’s team emphasized that the move to abandon the prosecutions, in federal courts in Washington and Florida, was not a reflection of their view on the merits of the cases but rather a reflection of their commitment to longstanding department policy.

“That prohibition 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 Government stands fully behind,” the prosecutors wrote in Monday’s court filing in the election interference case.

The decision was expected after Smith’s team began assessing how to wind down both the 2020 election interference case and the separate classified documents case in the wake of Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. The Justice Department believes Trump can no longer be tried in accordance with longstanding policy that says sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted.

Trump has cast both cases as politically motivated, and had vowed to fire Smith as soon as he takes office in January.

The 2020 election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing the Republican as he vied to reclaim the White House. But it quickly stalled amid legal fighting over Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for acts he took while in the White House.

The U.S. Supreme Court in July ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in the indictment, if any, could proceed to trial.

The case was just beginning to pick up steam again in the trial court in the weeks leading up to this year’s election. Smith’s team in October filed a lengthy brief laying out new evidence they planned to use against him at trial, accusing him of using “resorting to crimes” in an increasingly desperate effort to overturn the will of voters after he lost to Biden.

AUGUST 27, 2024:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment Tuesday (Aug. 27, 2024) against Donald Trump over his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election that keeps the same criminal charges but narrows the allegations against him following a Supreme Court opinion that conferred broad immunity on former presidents.

The new indictment removes a section of the indictment that had accused Trump of trying to use the law enforcement powers of the Justice Department to overturn his election loss, an area of conduct for which the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion last month, said that Trump was absolutely immune from prosecution.

The stripped-down criminal case represents a first effort by prosecutors to comply with a Supreme Court opinion that made all but certain the Republican presidential nominee won’t face trial before the November election in the case alleging he tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

It comes days before prosecutors and defense lawyers are expected to tell the judge overseeing the case how they want to proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which said presidents are presumptively immune from prosecution for official White House acts. The high court sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who now must analyze which allegations in the indictment were unofficial actions — or those taken in Trump’s private capacity — that can proceed to trial.

Prosecutors and Trump’s legal team will be back in court next week for the first hearing in front of Chutkan in months, given that the case had been effectively frozen since last December as Trump’s immunity appeal worked its way through the justice system.

In a statement on his Truth Social platform, Trump called the new indictment “an act of desperation” and an “effort to resurrect a ‘dead’ Witch Hunt.’” He said the new case has “all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY. ”

The special counsel’s office said the updated indictment, filed in federal court in Washington, was issued by a grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case. It said in a statement that the indictment “reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions.”

The new indictment does away with references to allegations that could be deemed as official acts for which Trump is entitled to immunity in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. That includes allegations that Trump tried to enlist the Justice Department in his failed effort to undo his election loss, including by conducting sham investigations and telling states — incorrectly — that significant fraud had been detected.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that a president’s interactions with the Justice Department constitute official acts for which he is entitled to immunity.

The original indictment detailed how Jeffrey Clark, a top official in the Trump Justice Department, wanted to send a letter to elected officials in certain states falsely claiming that the department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election,” but top department officials refused.

Clark’s support for Trump’s election fraud claims led Trump to openly contemplate naming him as acting attorney general in place of Jeffrey Rosen, who led the department in the final weeks of the Trump administration. Trump ultimately relented in that idea “when he was told it would result in mass resignations at the Justice Department,” according to the original indictment. Rosen remained on as acting attorney general through the end of Trump’s tenure.

The new case no longer references Clark as a co-conspirator. Trump’s alleged co-conspirators were not named in either indictment, but the details make clear their identities. The new indictment stresses that none of the other co-conspirators “were government officials during the conspiracies and all of whom were acting in a private capacity.”

The new indictment also removes references to Trump’s communications with federal government officials — like senior White House attorneys — who told him there was no evidence of fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 election. It also removes references to certain Trump statements, including a claim he made during a White House press conference two days after the election about a suspicious dump of votes in Detroit.

The new indictment still includes one of the more stunning allegations brought by Smith — that Trump participated in a scheme orchestrated by allies to enlist slates of fraudulent electors in battleground states won by Democrat Joe Biden who would falsely attest that Trump had won in those states.

It also retains allegations that Trump sought to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject legitimate electoral votes, and that Trump and his allies exploited the chaos at the Capitol on Jan. 6 in an attempt to further delay the certification of Biden’s victory.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that the interactions between Trump and Pence amounted to official conduct for which “Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution.”

The question, Roberts wrote, is whether the government can rebut “that presumption of immunity.”

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the ruling. In an excerpt from an interview with CBS News’ “Sunday Morning” that aired Tuesday, she said: “I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances. When we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same.”

JULY 15, 2024:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge presiding over the classified documents case against ex-President Donald Trump in Florida has dismissed the prosecution. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday sided with defense lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges against Trump was illegally appointed by the Justice Department. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team had vigorously contested Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case. The Republican former president says other cases against him also should be dismissed. Trump had been accused of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back. The judge’s ruling can be appealed and may be overruled by a higher court.

APRIL 10, 2024:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge presiding over the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump has granted a request by prosecutors aimed at protecting the identities of potential government witnesses. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon refused Tuesday (April 9, 2024) to categorically block witness statements from being disclosed, saying there was no basis for such a “sweeping” and “blanket” restriction on their inclusion in pretrial motions. The 24-page order centers on a dispute between special counsel Jack Smith’s team and lawyers for Trump over how much information about witnesses and their statements could be made public ahead of trial.

MARCH 15, 2024:

FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has rejected a bid by Donald Trump to throw out out his classified documents criminal case, and appeared skeptical during hours of arguments of a separate effort to scuttle the prosecution ahead of trial. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a two-page order Thursday (March 14, 2024) saying that though the Trump team had raised “various arguments warranting serious consideration,” a dismissal of charges was not merited. Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, is presiding over one of the four criminal cases against the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee. This case involves records, some highly classified, he took with him from the White House.

FEBRUARY 23, 2024:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump urged a Florida judge to dismiss the criminal case charging him with illegally retaining classified documents, claiming in part that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution even as that sweeping argument has so far in failed in federal appeals courts in a separate case.

In one of a slew of motions attacking the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, Trump’s lawyers late Thursday (Feb. 22, 2024) echoed arguments that were roundly rejected by a federal appeals court this month in his 2020 election interference case in Washington. Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in that case as the Republican presidential primary front-runner seeks to delay the trial until after the November election.

Trump’s lawyers wrote that the classified documents charges turn on his alleged decision to designate the papers as “personal” records under the Presidential Records Act, and argued that he cannot be prosecuted since that was an “official act” made while he was still in the White House.

Washington’s federal appeals court in its decision this month was unsparing in its repudiation of Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. But Trump’s lawyers argued that the appeals court’s decision was wrong, telling U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon she should not follow the court’s “poorly reasoned decision” in the classified documents case.

In other court filings late Thursday, Trump’s lawyers argued that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of special counsel Smith to investigate the former president was “unlawful” and grounds for dismissing the documents case. They also are attacking the law Trump is accused of violating as “unconstitutionally vague” as applied in his case.

The case accuses Trump of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them. A June 2023 indictment charging him with dozens of felony counts alleges investigators found boxes of sensitive documents recklessly stored at Mar-a-Lago in spaces including a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, his bedroom and a storage room.

Prosecutors have said the documents he stowed, refused to return and in some cases showed to visitors risked jeopardizing not only relations with foreign nations but also the safety of troops and confidential sources. They’ve also accused Trump of asking a staffer to delete camera footage at his Florida estate in an effort to obstruct the federal investigation into his records.

The case is currently scheduled to go to trial in May, but Judge Cannon has pushed back multiple other deadlines and signaled an openness to revisiting the trial date during a pivotal pretrial conference set for March. It’s one of four criminal cases the former president is facing as he vies to reclaim the White House in November.

Smith’s other case against Trump, accusing him of scheming to overturn his 2020 election loss, was supposed to go to trial in March, but that date was canceled while the former president pushed his claims of presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to keep the case on hold while he continues to fight his presidential immunity claims.

The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.

The justices’ decision on what to do and how quickly they act could determine whether the 2020 election case goes to trial before the November election. It carries enormous political ramifications, as Trump — if he wins — could potentially use his authority as head of the executive branch to try to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases. Or he potentially could seek a pardon for himself — something that’s a legally untested proposition.

Special counsel report says Trump would’ve been convicted for Jan. 6 ‘unprecedented criminal effort’

Story

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Current Weather