Trump’s Imminent Return and Legal Challenges
As the clock ticks down to Donald Trump’s expected comeback to the White House, Special Counsel Jack Smith has issued a stark warning to the American public: there exists significant evidence that could lead to the potential incarceration of the soon-to-be President.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department released its final report outlining Smith’s claims that Trump illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election results. The findings suggest that prosecutors have amassed enough evidence to result in a conviction had Trump’s electoral victory not stalled the case. The report notes, “If it weren’t for Mr. Trump’s election and his forthcoming return to the presidency, the evidence available would have sufficed to secure a conviction in court.”
This report casts a significant shadow over an individual ready to reclaim presidential power. While many of the findings regarding Trump’s efforts to retain control after the 2020 election are well-documented—having been extensively covered in various media outlets, films, and congressional hearings—this report provides additional insights into how the President-elect challenged the very fabric of American democracy and the government he is set to lead once more.
Smith’s team conducted interviews with over 250 people and obtained grand jury testimonies from more than 55 witnesses. They acknowledged that the evidence collected by the House committee investigating the Capitol riot was just “a small fraction of the office’s investigative record.” In the extensive 137-page report, Smith details how Trump sought to obstruct a peaceful transition of power, highlighting actions that included pressuring state and federal officials to overturn election results and inciting a mob to breach the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Smith accuses Trump of attempting to disrupt the certification of Biden’s election “through fraud and deceit,” which involved calling for “violence against perceived adversaries” leading up to the insurrection.
“As outlined in the earlier and subsequent indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and legitimate avenues for contesting the results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal actions to cling to 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 persistent influence. Smith addressed legal disputes surrounding executive privilege, the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity, and Trump’s intimidation tactics. “Mr. Trump utilized his considerable social media presence to issue extrajudicial comments—sometimes threatening—about the case, which led the Office to seek legal action to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and protect witnesses from intimidation.”
Additionally, the case was marred by perceptions of political bias and unfolded during a heated election season. “Mr. Trump’s announcement of his presidential candidacy while two federal criminal investigations were ongoing posed an unprecedented challenge for the Department of Justice and the courts,” Smith remarked.
Prosecutors also considered charging Trump under the Insurrection Act, an outdated law that prohibits rebellion against the U.S. government, but ultimately decided there was insufficient evidence to prove that Trump intended to incite the “full extent” of violence on January 6.
Many individuals involved in the violent events may soon evade legal consequences. Trump has suggested that one of his first actions upon assuming 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 told TIME. “Maybe in the first nine minutes.” In contrast, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance commented 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 been working to prevent its publication, claiming it is a smear campaign designed to “disrupt the presidential transition.” They are also trying to halt the release of another report by Smith concerning Trump’s management of classified documents. On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, temporarily blocked the report’s release and set a hearing for Friday to discuss the matter.
Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that Trump will face any repercussions. Smith dismissed both cases after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a Justice Department policy that prohibits prosecuting sitting presidents. Due to separate agency regulations, Smith was obligated to submit a final report for each case to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has committed to releasing both documents.
However, with Trump’s inauguration mere days away, the report may have little practical effect beyond enriching the historical narrative. For Trump, who has an uncanny knack for evading accountability, even this situation is seen as a win. “Jack is a clueless prosecutor who failed to bring his case to trial before the Election, which I won by a landslide,” Trump posted on his social media platform. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”
