A conviction for election meddling would have been handed down to Trump

Trump Would Have Faced Conviction Over 2020 Election Interference Without 2024 Re-Election, Says Special Counsel

Former President Donald Trump would have been convicted of illegally attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election had he not been re-elected in 2024, according to Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led federal investigations into Trump’s actions.

In a newly released report, Smith stated that the evidence against Trump was “sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.” The report, partially made public by the Department of Justice (DOJ), outlines how Trump allegedly pressured officials to reverse the 2020 election results, knowingly spread false claims of voter fraud, and exploited the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, dismissing Smith’s findings as “fake” and labeling the prosecutor “deranged.”

Trump, who served as president during the alleged offenses, spent four years out of office but secured re-election in the 2024 presidential race. He is set to return to the White House next week. His legal troubles, including the election interference case, have been dismissed following his victory due to constitutional protections that prevent prosecuting a sitting president.

Details from Smith’s Report

The report emphasizes that Trump engaged in “unprecedented efforts to unlawfully retain power,” involving tactics like spreading deceitful claims of election fraud and encouraging threats or violence against perceived opponents. Smith noted significant obstacles during the investigation, citing Trump’s influence over his social media following, which he allegedly used to intimidate witnesses, the courts, and DOJ officials.

Smith justified closing the case by referencing constitutional restrictions, stating:
“But for Mr. Trump’s election [in 2024] and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

In a letter accompanying the report, Smith firmly rejected claims that the investigation was politically driven, calling Trump’s accusations of Biden administration interference “laughable.” He added, “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.”

Legal Roadblocks and Dismissed Cases

The 137-page report was sent to Congress after midnight on Tuesday following legal delays. Judge Aileen Cannon permitted the release of the first part of the report but scheduled a hearing to decide whether to release a second section detailing separate allegations that Trump illegally retained classified government documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Trump responded on his Truth Social platform, boasting about his election win and mocking Smith: “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!! He couldn’t get the case to trial before the election, which I won in a landslide.”

Smith, appointed in 2022 to oversee federal investigations into Trump, had charged the former president with conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and with illegally keeping classified documents. Trump pleaded not guilty and characterized the charges as politically motivated. However, DOJ policy prohibits prosecuting a sitting president, leading Smith to drop both cases after Trump’s re-election.

The report clarifies this legal stance, stating:
“The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not depend on the severity of the charges or the strength of the evidence.”

Ongoing Legal Concerns for Trump’s Associates

Although Trump’s cases have been dismissed, legal proceedings continue against two of his associates, Walt Nauta, his personal aide, and Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager at Mar-a-Lago. They face charges related to assisting Trump in concealing classified documents. Their legal teams argued that releasing the full report could bias future juries.

Judge Cannon will soon decide whether to release the second part of Smith’s report, which could impact their ongoing cases.