WASHINGTON – The report by special counsel Jack Smith regarding the investigation into January 6 serves as the concluding section of a four-year saga involving a violent incursion into the U.S. Capitol, unprecedented legal action against a former president, and Donald Trump’s potential bid for re-election.

With the absence of a criminal trial to scrutinize the claims made, the findings in the 174-page document have sparked intense debate. Smith argues that the evidence was strong enough to convict Trump for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election and obstructing Congress.

Conversely, Trump contends that he was thoroughly cleared after charges were dismissed post-2024 election, describing the report as a “politically motivated circus” and criticizing the $20 million expenditure on the inquiry.

Here are key insights regarding the report and its potential consequences:

Did the report disclose any new information about Trump?

The report primarily reaffirmed findings and allegations that were largely already in the public domain.

Smith’s team outlined how Trump applied pressure on both state and federal officials with unfounded claims of election fraud in 2020, enlisted Republican electors in pivotal swing states won by President Joe Biden, and incited a violent confrontation at the Capitol.

“Had it not been for Mr. Trump’s bid for the presidency, our office assessed that the available evidence was adequate to secure a conviction,” Smith stated.

Trump continues to advocate his allegations of election fraud. He and his supporters argue that the Republican electors were gathered as a contingency in case he succeeded in court challenges to the election results. He also claimed that his speech at the January 6 rally used standard political rhetoric and that he bears no responsibility for the subsequent riot at the Capitol.

Trump’s legal defense team criticized the report and the investigation, labeling it as politically driven.

“Releasing a confidential report from this out-of-control private individual, masquerading as a prosecutor, would simply be a lawless move intended to damage President Trump politically and justify the extensive taxpayer funds Smith inappropriately spent on his unsubstantiated and dismissed cases,” wrote Trump’s attorneys Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, John Lauro, and Gregory Singer.

What did the report reveal regarding January 6?

The report detailed significant points from the case Smith built, alleging Trump attempted to unlawfully secure an election victory.

Among Trump’s falsehoods were various claims regarding supposedly large numbers of deceased, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise disqualified individuals voting. These assertions were thoroughly debunked by Republican election officials and law enforcement personnel at that time.

“These statements were undeniably and often blatantly false,” stated Smith.

Trump asserted that he sought Republican electors as a safeguard in case he won legal battles to support them. Smith emphasized that Trump’s misleading claims were crucial, as people wouldn’t have participated otherwise.

“For instance, one proposed Trump elector from Pennsylvania recognized this strategy as ‘illegal’ and an effort ‘to overthrow the Government,’ ultimately opting out of participation,” Smith noted.

Trump also pressured Vice President Mike Pence, in his capacity as the Senate president, to ignore results from key swing states during the counting of Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021. Pence declined to comply.

Shortly after rioters stormed the Capitol, Trump stated on social media that “Mike Pence didn’t have the bravery to fulfill what was necessary to defend our Country and our Constitution, allowing states to confirm a corrected set of facts, rather than the fraudulent or inaccurate ones they were previously asked to certify.”

A minute later, U.S. Secret Service agents evacuated Pence from the Senate chamber – just in time to avoid the mob. Upon learning of this, Trump replied dismissively, “So what?”

Why was Smith’s report released at this time?

Long-standing Justice Department policy prevents the prosecution of sitting presidents. Consequently, judges dismissed the two cases against Trump – concerning election interference and improper handling of classified documents – per Smith’s recommendation after he won the election.

Trump strongly opposed the report’s release, contesting it in federal court. His inauguration on Monday effectively became an unofficial cutoff for Attorney General Merrick Garland to make it public.

The report was published on Tuesday after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida temporarily halted its release at the request of Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. However, an appeals court declined to block the report, leading Garland to publish it following the failure of Trump’s last-minute emergency request to Cannon.

Garland indicated he would delay the public release of the second part of the report until the case against Nauta and De Oliveira concludes. Cannon, overseeing the classified documents case, has set a hearing for Friday regarding that section.

Meanwhile, Garland announced plans to share the classified portion with senior Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, conditional on their agreement not to disclose it publicly or discuss it outside of classified contexts.

Smith’s report continues a sequence of special counsel reports

Smith’s findings conclude a series of reports from special counsels, which Justice Department guidelines require to summarize their investigations and explain the decisions made regarding which charges to pursue and which to dismiss.