Smith defends Trump prosecution as final Jan. 6 report released to the public

Special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations into President-elect Trump in a final report released publicly early Tuesday morning, saying his determinations were free from political interference and that, if permitted to proceed, his cases would have likely secured a conviction.

Smith made the claims both in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and in the much-awaited release of the election interference volume of his final report.

In his letter to Garland, Smith broke his silence on more than a year of attacks from Trump, who accused Smith of being at the helm of a politically motivated prosecution. 

“The ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully,” Smith wrote, adding that Garland nor anyone else at the Justice Department pushed him to prosecute Trump.

“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.”

The release of the report comes after a swift court battle launched by Trump as he and his co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago case sought to block both volumes of Smith’s report from being shared with the public.

Ultimately, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon cleared the way for the volume dealing with Jan. 6, 2021, to be published.

The public release does not include a second volume Smith wrote concerning the prosecution of Trump for his handling of classified documents. Garland has indicated he does not plan to release that section, given that the case remains pending as to Trump’s former co-defendants.

The report offers a first glimpse at Smith’s inner thoughts on how he approached the case, as he has previously spoken publicly about the case only when he was first appointed and each time Trump was charged.

Smith, who resigned from the Justice Department on Friday, details his decision to ask the court to dismiss charges against Trump after he won reelection, writing that he believed he would have scored a conviction against the president-elect in the high-stakes case.

“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,” Smith wrote.

Smith said he felt assured of that conclusion even with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, as he said all Trump’s actions were beyond the scope of his official duties.

He nonetheless hammered the Supreme Court ruling at various turns, saying it left many issues “unresolved” and “undefined.”

The bulk of the volume released Tuesday — some 174 pages — deals with Smith’s lengthy investigation into Trump’s efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

“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,” Smith wrote. 

“Until Mr. Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.”

Smith said it was in the public interest to bring charges against Trump, both to defend election integrity as well as “defending from future harm the United States’ exceptional tradition of peaceful transitions of presidential power.” 

By Smith’s own admission, the report largely contains information made public in prior court filings. Trump’s uncharged co-conspirators in the case, though easily identifiable, remain unnamed.

It also does not reveal which members of Congress were coordinating with Trump allies on the effort, though one reference clearly refers to Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), noting his conversations with Jeffrey Clark were “in contravention of policies designed to protect the independence of the Justice Department.”

Smith said he would have shown the messages between the two men at a trial if the Supreme Court had not blocked him from filing charges against Trump based on his interactions with the Justice Department. The special counsel then noted that the messages also could have been presented if prosecutors later brought charges against Trump’s co-conspirators — writing that his office determined enough evidence existed to do so for some of the six.

Trump planned to install Clark as acting attorney general to forward an investigation into his baseless claims of election fraud in the 2020 election.

The special counsel described prosecuting Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign as an “unprecedented challenge,” detailing at length the former president’s efforts to command strong loyalty from potential witnesses and attack prosecutors.

“The Office had no interest in affecting the presidential election, and it complied fully with the letter and spirit of the Department’s policy regarding election year sensitivities,” Smith wrote.

Smith also recognized the difficulties of pursuing one charge pushed by some critics — violation of the Insurrection Act — which if successful in court would have barred Trump from again seeking office.

“The Office recognized why courts described the attack on the Capitol as an ‘insurrection,’ but it was also aware of the litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute,” Smith wrote of the Civil War-era law.

The report’s release comes hours after the Justice Department published special counsel David Weiss’s final report detailing his prosecutions of Hunter Biden, the president’s son.

Another letter included in the report details Smith’s pushback as Trump was fighting the release of his report.

Smith wrote that, despite complaints over the unusual ability to see the report before it was shared, Trump’s team only came to review the report two of the four days offered, calling his complaints about the arrangement “disingenuous.” 

“Upon completing that review, Mr. Trump has not contested a single factual representation in the Report, instead objecting only to its public release,” Smith wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s letter claims that dismissal of his criminal cases signifies Mr. Trump’s ‘complete exoneration.. That is false. … the Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits Mr. Trump’s indictment and prosecution while he is in office 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-all of which the Office stands fully behind.”

— Updated at 10:10 a.m. EST.