Special Counsel: Trump Likely Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case

Jack Smith’s Report Raises Serious Concerns After Trump’s Election Victory

In an unprecedented turn of events following the 2024 election, Special Counsel Jack Smith released a significant report early Tuesday morning, detailing the indictment of President-elect Donald J. Trump. Smith’s report asserts that there was ample evidence to convict Trump of charges relating to his actions aimed at holding onto power after his defeat in the 2020 election. However, the report highlights a critical legal nuance: the Justice Department’s established policy that prohibits the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president has rendered it impossible to pursue the case any further.

Smith pointedly acknowledged the limitations imposed by Trump’s re-election. In his report, he stated, "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." Smith emphasized that, had it not been for Trump’s election, the available evidence would have led to a conviction.

The report, consisting of 137 pages, covered only a portion of Smith’s comprehensive findings, with the remaining details—particularly concerning the classified documents case—remaining sealed. The Justice Department submitted this volume to Congress shortly after midnight on Tuesday, signaling the gravity of the findings and the implications for U.S. governance.

The document represents a profound critique of a president-elect, culminating a complex legal journey. It lays bare Trump’s alleged actions, which Smith argues undermine the very foundation of American democracy. The findings also serve as a reminder of the extensive evidence amassed against Trump during the investigation, which was conducted under Smith’s authority.

Adding complexity to the situation, the day prior, Judge Aileen M. Cannon—who oversees Trump’s separate federal case regarding classified documents—ruled that a segment of related material could be released. However, she restricted the Department of Justice (DOJ) from disclosing another critical volume pertaining to the documents case until further legal proceedings surrounding Trump’s co-defendants have concluded. This ruling illustrates the intricate legal circumstances that continue to evolve as various cases involving Trump and his associates unfold.

As the report gained traction, Trump’s defense team condemned it as a politically motivated attack, claiming it was designed to hinder the presidential transition. Trump’s lawyers, shown a draft copy of the report before its public release, characterized it as an "attempted political hit job." One of Trump’s allies, Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, expressed concerns over his potential implication in the report as an unindicted co-conspirator in the election interference case.

The backdrop to Smith’s findings includes a series of federal charges brought against Trump in August 2023. These charges stemmed from allegations that Trump orchestrated a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results. Simultaneously, he faced indictment in Florida for allegedly mishandling classified documents following his departure from the White House. Together, these cases reflect a daunting landscape of legal scrutiny facing the former president.

However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically following Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, which prompted Smith to cease the active prosecution of these charges. According to established DOJ policy, prosecuting a sitting president is prohibited, leading Smith to file a final report accounting for both cases—one addressing each indictment.

Currently, the DOJ, under the stewardship of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, has opted to withhold the classified documents volume until all related legal proceedings involving Trump’s co-defendants reach a conclusion. Meanwhile, legal representatives for the co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, are challenging the release of this report. They successfully obtained a preliminary injunction preventing immediate disclosure.

In a fresh development, Judge Cannon instructed both defense and prosecution teams to appear before her in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida, this Friday. The court will deliberate on the appropriateness of releasing the classified documents report to Congress, underscoring the ongoing legal battles that intertwine with Trump’s political ambitions.

As this story continues to evolve, the implications of Smith’s report—and the broader political and legal landscapes—remain at the forefront of national discourse. Updates on the situation will follow as further details emerge, adding to the already complex narrative surrounding one of the most consequential periods in recent American political history.