WASHINGTON − Special counsel Jack Smith, whose office charged President-elect Donald Trump with unlawfully attempting to retain power after losing the 2020 election, stated in a significant final report released early Tuesday that his team had gathered enough evidence to secure a conviction against Trump if the case proceeded to trial.

However, due to Trump’s election to a second term in November, Smith noted in the 174-page report—dated January 7 and addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland—that moving forward with the case was unfeasible.

“The Department’s perspective is clear that the Constitution prevents the ongoing indictment and prosecution of a President, irrespective of the seriousness of the alleged crimes, the strength of the Government’s evidence, or the merits of the case, all of which the Office fully supports,” Smith stated in the report.

“Without Mr. Trump’s election and the imminent return to the presidency, the Office believed that the admissible evidence was enough to obtain and maintain a conviction at trial,” Smith added.

Smith further mentioned that his team considered pursuing an even more severe charge against Trump—a violation of the Insurrection Act—believing there were “reasonable arguments that it could apply.”

The Insurrection Act maintains that anyone who “incites, instigates, aids, or participates in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or its laws, or provides support to such actions,” could face a fine and up to 10 years in prison, making them ineligible for any US office, according to the report.

Ultimately, the special counsel’s office decided against bringing that or any other potential charges.

Trump and his legal team attempted to block the report’s release on various grounds, claiming it could disrupt his plans to assume office on January 20. However, late Monday night, Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida denied Trump’s emergency request to halt its publication.

Shortly after, the Justice Department forwarded the report to Congress.

The report’s publication concludes an extraordinary legal saga that pitted the Justice Department—and later the special counsel’s office, after Trump announced his candidacy—against the former president. Investigators concentrated on some of the most serious allegations ever directed at an elected official of Trump’s profile, examining whether he endeavored to undermine the will of the voters who selected President Joe Biden in 2020 instead of Trump.

After Trump won the 2024 election last November, judges dismissed the charges in both cases at Smith’s request, adhering to a long-standing Justice Department policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. Special counsels typically compile reports that clarify their investigative findings and the rationale behind decisions on whether to pursue charges.

Trump reacted to the report’s release via Truth Social, criticizing Smith and the congressional committee that investigated the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.

“Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss,’ Crooked Joe Biden, so he produces yet another ‘Report’ based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, which showed how totally innocent I was and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi and others were,” Trump wrote. “Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who couldn’t get his case tried before the Election, which I won decisively. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Trump, Smith exchange criticisms regarding report release

Trump’s attorneys were permitted to review the report before its public release. In a series of letters exchanged, Trump’s lawyers characterized the report as a “lawless publicity stunt,” while Smith responded that they did not dispute any facts presented in the report.

Trump has also claimed that Attorney General Garland appointed Smith illegitimately, which contributed to Judge Cannon dismissing the classified documents case. Smith appealed her decision but later withdrew it after Trump’s election.

Trump’s legal team criticized Smith for allegedly “pillaging” the government for over $20 million for what they termed “politically charged work.”

“Ultimately, releasing any confidential report drafted by this out-of-control private citizen masquerading as a prosecutor would simply be a lawless political maneuver, aimed at damaging President Trump and justifying the extensive taxpayer funds Smith inappropriately spent on his unsuccessful and dismissed cases,” Trump’s attorneys—Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, John Lauro, and Gregory Singer—stated.

Smith countered that Trump merely objected to the report’s release rather than its content, making “a variety of false, misleading, or unfounded assertions.”

“That response fails to identify any specific factual objections to the draft,” remarked Smith.

Witnesses and officials threatened after Trump’s social media remarks: Smith

Smith noted that he faced “a significant challenge” while pursuing the case due to the “threats and harassment” directed at witnesses, the judge, and Justice Department personnel that followed Trump’s social media comments.

After the January 6 riot, Trump acknowledged that his supporters tended to follow him closely “like no one else.”

This pattern began when Trump would attack and attempt to influence state and federal officials with unfounded claims about the 2020 election being stolen. One unnamed witness reported receiving “specific and graphic threats against his family,” while a public official required additional police protection following Trump’s posts.

“After Mr. Trump publicly criticized these individuals, threats and harassment from his followers were inevitable,” Smith stated.

The day after his own arraignment, Trump posted on social media: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

The subsequent day, a supporter called U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s office, hurling a racial slur. “If Trump doesn’t win in 2024, we will come to kill you, so tread carefully,” the caller warned. “You will be personally targeted, publicly, your family, all of it.”

Smith noted that these attacks had “real-time, real-world consequences,” subjecting those targeted to “a torrent of threats and intimidation,” completely altering their lives.

A comprehensive account of Trump’s alleged 2020 election scheme

Smith’s report offers the most detailed account yet regarding the investigations leading to two federal indictments against Trump before both were dismissed. Earlier, Smith’s team published a 165-page summary of the election case in October, revealing that Trump allegedly responded with “so what?” when Vice President Mike Pence had to be moved to a secure location during the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

Now, Smith has crafted a final two-volume report, including a newly released volume outlining how Trump purportedly conspired to overturn the 2020 election. The second volume, which centers on Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents post-presidency, has not been made public as Trump’s co-defendants still face charges related to that matter.

In their appeal, attorneys for Trump characterized the report as “a politically motivated attack aimed solely at disrupting the presidential transition and undermining President Trump’s powers as executive.”

Smith stepped down from his position in the Justice Department on Friday. Trump previously indicated that he would dismiss Smith upon taking office, adding that Smith “should be in jail.”

Smith outlines grounds for prosecution, asserting Trump instigated Jan. 6 violence

In the report, Smith contended that pursuing an election-interference case against Trump was crucial to safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process in the U.S. He accused Trump of attempting to undermine the nation’s methods for gathering, counting, and certifying the results of the 2020 election “through fraud and deceit.”

Smith emphasized, “Safeguarding the longstanding American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power supported the case for prosecution.”

Additionally, Smith defended the prosecution by stating that Trump jeopardized the fundamental rights to vote and have those votes counted. Trump allegedly pressured state officials to ignore the legitimate majority of votes, urged Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” over 11,000 votes, and pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to dismiss the electoral certificates reflecting the votes of millions.

According to the report, “An additional reason justifying Mr. Trump’s prosecution was the necessity to uphold and defend the voting rights of these and all future voters.”

The report asserts that Trump also made threats and incited violence against those he viewed as adversaries; on January 6, 2021, 140 law enforcement officers faced assaults, with some sustaining “significant injuries.”

Smith indicated that Trump incited this violence by telling his supporters in a speech that day to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell.”

He wrote, “The individuals who took Mr. Trump’s words to heart formed a massive crowd that breached restricted Capitol grounds and the building, violently confronting law enforcement officers guarding the Capitol and those within.”

What were the allegations against Trump?

Trump was indicted in Washington, D.C., for allegedly scheming to overturn the 2020 election with unfounded fraud claims. He also faced charges for obstructing Congress during the counting of Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021, when a riot led by his supporters temporarily halted the proceedings.

Trump has pleaded not guilty in both cases and insists on his innocence.

“I defeated deranged Jack Smith,” Trump stated on Tuesday. “We did nothing wrong.”

Trump claims report will continue ‘false and discredited accusations’

Trump requested Garland to withhold the report from public release. His lawyers claimed the dismissal of charges amounted to “Trump’s complete exoneration” and that the report would “perpetuate false and discredited accusations.”

He joined his co-defendants in the documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in seeking to prevent the report’s release. Nauta and De Oliveira contended that Smith’s work “is expected to be a biased, one-sided report” aimed solely at convincing the public that those charged are guilty.

However, Garland released the report “in the interest of the public” regarding a “significant issue,” according to department lawyers advocating for its release: Brian Boynton, principal deputy assistant attorney general; Markenzy LaPointe, U.S. attorney for southern Florida; and Mark Freeman, a civil division attorney.

The report does not include information on Trump’s other federal case in Florida, where he was accused of illegally retaining national defense documents after his presidency ended. During a search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, the FBI discovered over 100 classified documents.

Garland will postpone the release of Smith’s section on classified documents until the charges involving Nauta and De Oliveira are resolved. The second section will be reviewed by leading Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, according to government lawyers.

Responding to Trump’s allegations of political vendettas

Smith, who previously prosecuted war crimes, acknowledged Trump’s criticisms of him and his prosecutorial team in a letter to Garland that accompanied the report, where he noted that some team members received threats.

Smith commented, “The continuous public scrutiny, threats to our team’s safety, and relentless baseless attacks on their character did not dissuade them from meeting their professional commitments.” He praised his team members for their dedication and resilience during the last two years.

Smith, who maintained a low profile throughout the case, vigorously rejected Trump’s assertion of political motivation behind the prosecution.

“I significantly relied on my team’s advice, but I want to emphasize that the ultimate choice to pursue charges against Mr. Trump was solely mine. I fully stand by that decision,” Smith expressed in his letter to Garland.

“It is crucial for me to clarify that no one in the Department of Justice sought to interfere with or improperly influence my prosecutorial decision-making,” he continued. “To those who know me, Mr. Trump’s suggestion that my prosecutorial choices were swayed by the Biden administration or other political influences is, frankly, laughable.”