DoJ Report States Trump Likely Would Have Been Convicted of Election Interference

A report by Special Counsel Jack Smith suggests that former U.S. President Donald Trump would likely have been convicted of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election if he had not been re-elected in 2024. The evidence, according to Smith, was sufficient to secure a conviction in court, though the case was ultimately closed following Trump’s successful re-election.

The 2020 election saw Trump lose to Joe Biden, but Trump has consistently denied allegations of attempting to alter the results through pressuring officials, spreading false claims of election fraud, and encouraging the violent Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Despite these serious accusations, Trump has maintained his innocence throughout the investigations.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, outlined in his report that there was substantial evidence to support charges against the former president. However, the Department of Justice (DoJ) ultimately closed the case due to a key provision of the U.S. Constitution that forbids prosecuting a sitting president. The release of Smith’s report, a partial version of which was provided to Congress, sheds light on why the case was halted despite the strong evidence.

Smith’s investigation focused on what he described as Trump’s “unprecedented efforts” to retain power unlawfully. These efforts reportedly included spreading false claims about election fraud, trying to coerce state officials to reverse the results, and using violent rhetoric to target political opponents. Smith also noted that Trump’s use of social media to influence witnesses, courts, and Department of Justice (DoJ) officials presented significant challenges for investigators.

The Special Counsel’s report justified the investigation by outlining the various ways Trump allegedly sought to deceive the public and maintain control after losing the election. Smith’s office emphasized that Trump’s actions posed a direct threat to the integrity of the democratic process. However, the report also acknowledged that due to the constitutional prohibition against prosecuting a sitting president, the case could not be pursued at the time.

Despite these findings, Smith clarified that the decision to close the case was a legal one, guided by the constitutional constraints on prosecuting a president while in office. He noted that had Trump not been re-elected in 2024, the case would have likely moved forward to trial. The report stressed that the evidence was strong enough to support a conviction, but the legal framework prevented further action at that point.

Trump responded to the release of Smith’s report by dismissing the findings as politically motivated. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump described Smith as “deranged” and labeled the report’s conclusions as “fake.” He also emphasized that he had won the 2024 election in a “landslide” and used this as a reason to downplay the significance of the investigation’s findings.

The report from Smith’s office also addressed claims that the investigation was politically influenced by the Biden administration. Smith firmly rejected these suggestions, asserting that the investigation was conducted in a non-partisan manner. He argued that the decisions made throughout the investigation were based on facts and legal principles, not political considerations.

The release of this report is part of a larger legal saga surrounding Trump’s actions before and after the 2020 election. In addition to the election interference investigation, Trump is also facing charges related to his handling of classified documents, which led to another ongoing case. However, Trump’s legal troubles have been complicated by his re-election in 2024, as legal experts grapple with how to proceed with cases involving a sitting president.

While Trump’s re-election effectively ended the investigation into his election interference, the legal debates surrounding his behavior during and after the 2020 election continue. The partial release of Smith’s report has sparked renewed discussions about the legal limits of presidential power and the potential consequences of a president’s efforts to manipulate election results.

As Trump prepares to take office for a second term, the legal and political fallout from his previous actions will likely remain a central issue. The complexities of prosecuting a sitting president, combined with the constitutional protections in place, mean that Trump’s legal battles are far from over, despite the dismissal of the interference case. The full implications of Smith’s findings, and whether further legal action will be pursued, remain to be seen.