Jack Smith's conclusive remarks: Key points from the special counsel's report
A justification for Merrick Garland, a dropped criminal charge, and several new pieces of evidence.
TroibNews 
Special counsel Jack Smith’s recently released report offers new perspectives on his efforts to hold Donald Trump accountable for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Smith asserted that he had gathered sufficient evidence to secure a conviction if the case had gone to trial, detailing a thorough collection of facts that could have been presented to a jury. However, his report also conveyed a defensive tone, attempting to clarify why the case did not advance further.
The public version of the report is also incomplete, as its second volume, which addresses the investigation into the classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office in 2021, remains confidential. Attorney General Merrick Garland has no plans to publicly release that segment of the report, although he intends to share it with select lawmakers. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has prohibited any distribution of it outside the Justice Department. With Trump set to be inaugurated next week, he will have the ability to delay any formal publication of Smith’s final assessment regarding the documents case.
Nevertheless, the 137-page document on the election case serves as a conclusive review of Trump's attempts to disrupt the transfer of power four years ago, detailing how investigators established and pursued an unprecedented conspiracy prosecution against a former president, and how that effort waned when Trump regained the presidency.
Here are the main takeaways from this significant report.
**Smith supports Garland**
Many on the left hold the view that Garland was overly accommodating to Trump after Joe Biden took office, arguing that he delayed taking decisive action against Trump for nearly two years. Critics contend that this procrastination made it far more challenging for Smith, appointed in November 2022, to bring Trump to trial before the 2024 election.
Smith's report highlighted that the Justice Department was actively pursuing leads related to Trump long before the special counsel's involvement began. He attributed the sluggish pace to litigation strategies employed by Trump and his allies.
One example included Twitter, which delayed Smith’s attempts to access Trump’s account data for weeks, despite a court order that ultimately led to the company being held in contempt and fined $350,000. It took over a year for Smith to obtain text messages between Rep. Scott Perry and Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. The Justice Department also spent months trying to gain access to communications from John Eastman, a lawyer instrumental in Trump's last-ditch efforts to cling to power.
Smith noted that the most prolonged struggles arose from Trump's sweeping invocation of executive privilege to obstruct witness testimony. Retrieving testimony from Trump White House aides like Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, and Pat Cipollone took months of concealed legal proceedings. Former Vice President Mike Pence also resisted testifying until a court mandated he reveal certain interactions with Trump. Smith observed that judges largely rejected Trump's privilege claims, with one noting it demonstrated an "obvious" attempt to delay the investigation.
Smith also highlighted a major hurdle: the Supreme Court. He noted that the justices rejected his push to address Trump’s presidential immunity claims on a timeline similar to that followed during Watergate, which involved President Richard Nixon’s tapes. Smith argued that the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's immunity essentially ensured further litigation that would have likely returned to the justices had Trump not regained the presidency and the prosecution continued.
**Smith's rationale for not pursuing an insurrection charge**
Much of Smith’s report serves as an explanation for his “charging decisions” regarding four felony counts against the former president. For the first time publicly, Smith discussed his reasoning for not charging Trump with inciting an insurrection—one of the most severe potential offenses available under DOJ guidelines.
Smith concluded that there was legal ambiguity surrounding the federal insurrection statute, which had not been utilized in a century. He expressed that the law might not apply in cases where a sitting president attempted to unlawfully maintain power rather than an outside force attempting to overthrow a legitimate government. In a noteworthy concession to Trump, Smith acknowledged that the evidence did not demonstrate that Trump intended to incite “the full scope” of violence that unfolded on January 6, 2021.
Smith asserted, “The evidence established that the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay.” However, he noted that federal investigators “did not develop direct evidence—such as an explicit admission or communication with co-conspirators—of Mr. Trump's subjective intent to cause the full scope of the violence.”
**New details emerge**
While much of the evidence referenced in Smith’s report has already surfaced in prior court filings or congressional investigations related to January 6, there are several notable new details:
- A Signal exchange between Rep. Scott Perry and Trump DOJ official Jeff Clark revealed that a classified review of potential voter fraud evidence yielded “nothing helpful to P”—abbreviated for President Trump.
- Interviews with Trump’s fake electors revealed that some expressed concerns about being duped into a plan designed to “overthrow the government.”
- Analysis showed that on January 6, Trump was watching Fox News when an interview featured a supporter marching to the Capitol, who criticized Pence for resisting Trump’s push to overturn the election. Shortly thereafter, Smith pointed out, Trump tweeted an attack on Pence, escalating the mob's anger just as Pence was being evacuated for safety.
**Will the primary documents be made public?**
Smith’s report recounted the wealth of evidence he compiled in narrative form, yet the ultimate fate of that evidence could be even more significant than Smith’s conclusions. The House January 6 select committee conducted a comprehensive two-year investigation and produced an extensive final report. However, it was the committee’s substantial collection of witness transcripts and primary source documents—sourced from Trump’s files in the National Archives, emails obtained through subpoenas, and evidence gathered during court disputes—that has proven most impactful.
Smith accessed areas the select committee could not, obtaining grand jury testimony from Pence, Meadows, and other high-ranking aides, including some who will return to the White House next week. While those transcripts remain sealed, multiple legal efforts are underway to bring them into public view.
The Justice Department is set to respond to two of those efforts this week, potentially providing insight into whether prosecutors will prioritize the public interest in disclosing these foundational materials over their persistent confidentiality, particularly now that the criminal case has been dropped.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
The public version of the report is also incomplete, as its second volume, which addresses the investigation into the classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office in 2021, remains confidential. Attorney General Merrick Garland has no plans to publicly release that segment of the report, although he intends to share it with select lawmakers. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has prohibited any distribution of it outside the Justice Department. With Trump set to be inaugurated next week, he will have the ability to delay any formal publication of Smith’s final assessment regarding the documents case.
Nevertheless, the 137-page document on the election case serves as a conclusive review of Trump's attempts to disrupt the transfer of power four years ago, detailing how investigators established and pursued an unprecedented conspiracy prosecution against a former president, and how that effort waned when Trump regained the presidency.
Here are the main takeaways from this significant report.
**Smith supports Garland**
Many on the left hold the view that Garland was overly accommodating to Trump after Joe Biden took office, arguing that he delayed taking decisive action against Trump for nearly two years. Critics contend that this procrastination made it far more challenging for Smith, appointed in November 2022, to bring Trump to trial before the 2024 election.
Smith's report highlighted that the Justice Department was actively pursuing leads related to Trump long before the special counsel's involvement began. He attributed the sluggish pace to litigation strategies employed by Trump and his allies.
One example included Twitter, which delayed Smith’s attempts to access Trump’s account data for weeks, despite a court order that ultimately led to the company being held in contempt and fined $350,000. It took over a year for Smith to obtain text messages between Rep. Scott Perry and Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. The Justice Department also spent months trying to gain access to communications from John Eastman, a lawyer instrumental in Trump's last-ditch efforts to cling to power.
Smith noted that the most prolonged struggles arose from Trump's sweeping invocation of executive privilege to obstruct witness testimony. Retrieving testimony from Trump White House aides like Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, and Pat Cipollone took months of concealed legal proceedings. Former Vice President Mike Pence also resisted testifying until a court mandated he reveal certain interactions with Trump. Smith observed that judges largely rejected Trump's privilege claims, with one noting it demonstrated an "obvious" attempt to delay the investigation.
Smith also highlighted a major hurdle: the Supreme Court. He noted that the justices rejected his push to address Trump’s presidential immunity claims on a timeline similar to that followed during Watergate, which involved President Richard Nixon’s tapes. Smith argued that the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's immunity essentially ensured further litigation that would have likely returned to the justices had Trump not regained the presidency and the prosecution continued.
**Smith's rationale for not pursuing an insurrection charge**
Much of Smith’s report serves as an explanation for his “charging decisions” regarding four felony counts against the former president. For the first time publicly, Smith discussed his reasoning for not charging Trump with inciting an insurrection—one of the most severe potential offenses available under DOJ guidelines.
Smith concluded that there was legal ambiguity surrounding the federal insurrection statute, which had not been utilized in a century. He expressed that the law might not apply in cases where a sitting president attempted to unlawfully maintain power rather than an outside force attempting to overthrow a legitimate government. In a noteworthy concession to Trump, Smith acknowledged that the evidence did not demonstrate that Trump intended to incite “the full scope” of violence that unfolded on January 6, 2021.
Smith asserted, “The evidence established that the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay.” However, he noted that federal investigators “did not develop direct evidence—such as an explicit admission or communication with co-conspirators—of Mr. Trump's subjective intent to cause the full scope of the violence.”
**New details emerge**
While much of the evidence referenced in Smith’s report has already surfaced in prior court filings or congressional investigations related to January 6, there are several notable new details:
- A Signal exchange between Rep. Scott Perry and Trump DOJ official Jeff Clark revealed that a classified review of potential voter fraud evidence yielded “nothing helpful to P”—abbreviated for President Trump.
- Interviews with Trump’s fake electors revealed that some expressed concerns about being duped into a plan designed to “overthrow the government.”
- Analysis showed that on January 6, Trump was watching Fox News when an interview featured a supporter marching to the Capitol, who criticized Pence for resisting Trump’s push to overturn the election. Shortly thereafter, Smith pointed out, Trump tweeted an attack on Pence, escalating the mob's anger just as Pence was being evacuated for safety.
**Will the primary documents be made public?**
Smith’s report recounted the wealth of evidence he compiled in narrative form, yet the ultimate fate of that evidence could be even more significant than Smith’s conclusions. The House January 6 select committee conducted a comprehensive two-year investigation and produced an extensive final report. However, it was the committee’s substantial collection of witness transcripts and primary source documents—sourced from Trump’s files in the National Archives, emails obtained through subpoenas, and evidence gathered during court disputes—that has proven most impactful.
Smith accessed areas the select committee could not, obtaining grand jury testimony from Pence, Meadows, and other high-ranking aides, including some who will return to the White House next week. While those transcripts remain sealed, multiple legal efforts are underway to bring them into public view.
The Justice Department is set to respond to two of those efforts this week, potentially providing insight into whether prosecutors will prioritize the public interest in disclosing these foundational materials over their persistent confidentiality, particularly now that the criminal case has been dropped.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
