Special Counsel Report highlights Trump’s criminal efforts to retain power After 2020 election

Special counsel Jack Smith and his team believed they could have successfully convicted Donald Trump for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, according to a detailed report released early on Tuesday. The 130+ page document elaborates on the former president’s attempts to overturn the election results, specifically highlighting his criminal efforts to retain power.

Smith’s report asserts that when it became clear Trump had lost the election, and legal avenues to challenge the results had failed, he resorted to illegal methods to stay in office. It underscores how Trump exerted pressure on state officials, backed a fraudulent electors plan, and pressured Vice President Mike Pence, all while his supporters launched an attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The report, which follows a court decision lifting a block on its release, was made public by Attorney General Merrick Garland after the expiration of a legal hold. However, Trump's legal team had tried to delay the release, citing legal maneuvers, and also prevented the second volume of Smith's findings, which covers the classified documents investigation, from being disclosed.

Smith’s final report on the investigation into the January 6 events and Trump’s actions leading up to it paints a thorough picture of how Trump tried to undermine the democratic process. This includes his attempts to interfere with the certification of the Electoral College results, with Smith emphasizing that Trump's actions went against over 130 years of peaceful transitions of power in the U.S. Smith also noted that, despite the legal setbacks, his decision to prosecute Trump was a direct response to these unlawful actions.

Trump, on the other hand, dismissed the report as "fake findings" in a post on his Truth Social network, claiming he had won the election "in a landslide." He also attacked Smith, calling him a “lamebrain prosecutor.”

The report documents that Trump faced four charges related to the 2020 election, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. Smith also tackled the arguments Trump might present in his defense, such as claims of acting in good faith or following legal advice. Smith rejected these defenses, explaining that Trump knowingly spread false claims of election fraud to influence state officials and manipulate the election results.

In addition, Smith addressed how Trump used social media to intimidate witnesses and others involved in the investigation. His posts targeting officials and judges, Smith stated, resulted in harassment and threats from Trump's supporters.

Smith defended his decision to prosecute, stating that Trump’s conduct was far beyond simply contesting the election through legal means and that it posed a serious threat to the integrity of the U.S. electoral system. He underscored the importance of maintaining the peaceful transfer of power, highlighting that more than 1,500 individuals were criminally charged for their roles in the January 6 assault on the Capitol.

The investigation also continued after Trump’s indictment, as federal investigators examined over 250 witnesses and gathered over a terabyte of data. While Smith’s office didn’t bring additional charges against Trump’s co-conspirators, it referred an investigation into one unindicted person to another U.S. attorney’s office.

Throughout the report, Smith emphasized that the investigation was conducted without political bias and in compliance with the Department of Justice’s election-year policies. Trump’s legal team had argued that the investigation was politically motivated, a claim Smith and the court rejected.

Smith's office also investigated the possibility of charges against unindicted co-conspirators but ultimately did not bring further cases. Despite these challenges, the report emphasizes the necessity of the prosecution to protect the integrity of U.S. elections and the peaceful transition of power.

Trump’s lawyers have contested the report’s findings, accusing Smith of pursuing a partisan agenda, but Smith’s response refutes these claims, pointing to the consistent legal standards and evidence supporting the charges. As the case continues, Smith’s report underscores the unprecedented nature of prosecuting a former president and the critical need to uphold the rule of law.