[blog](blog): 2025-01-14 blog Special Counsel Report (#693)

[blog](blog): 2025-01-14 blog Special Counsel Repo

Signed-off-by: Ralph Hightower <32745442+RalphHightower@users.noreply.github.com>

_posts/2025/01/2025-01-14-DOJ-SC-Report-TrumpGuilty.md

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+---
+layout: post
+tags: [2020 presidential election, election interference, election fraud, January 6 2021 Insurrection, Department of Justice (DOJ), special counsel, Jack Smith, Federal Attorney General, Merrick Garland, politics]
+categories: [Donald Trump]
+date: 2025-01-14 5:52 PM
+excerpt: ''
+#image: 'BASEURL/assets/blog/img/.png'
+#description:
+#permalink:
+title: "Guilty of Election Interference & January 6, 2021 Insurrection, Trump Would Have Been! – Yoda"
+---
+
+
+## [Justice Dept. releases Trump special counsel report on Jan. 6 case - The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/13/trump-jan-6-classified-documents-investigations-report-jack-smith/)
+
+*President-elect Donald Trump had tried to prevent the release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report before taking office next week.*
+
+January 14, 2025 at 3:05 a.m. EST
+
+By Perry Stein, Spencer S. Hsu, Jeremy Roebuck and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
+
+- The report details evidence against Trump for allegedly trying to obstruct the 2020 election results.
+- It portrays Trump as using his power to deceive state lawmakers and Republican Party activists.
+- The [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/) released the report after a court order barring its release expired.
+- The report serves as the final public record of the prosecution, which was abandoned after Trump became president-elect.
+- The report emphasizes that dropping the case does not lessen the severity of the alleged crimes.
+- The investigation included interviews with over 250 individuals and grand jury testimony from more than 55 witnesses.
+- Prosecutors considered charging Trump with insurrection but opted not to due to lack of modern precedent.
+- The report describes Trump's efforts to press officials in key swing states to overturn the election results.
+
+Had Donald Trump not won the 2024 presidential election, he would have been convicted of federal crimes from his role in the 2020 presidential election interference case and inciting mod violence in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. [US Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/) Special Counsel, Jack Smith, hand delivered his final report to [US Attorney General, Merrick Garland](https://www.justice.gov/).
+
+@RalphHightower: Although I am not a lawyer, Special Counsel Jack Smith had a rock-solid indictment of Trump after the [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) ruled to revise the indictment focusing on Trump as a private  citizen running for office. 
+
+[Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/) regulations prohibit the prosecution of a sitting president, but Smith emphasized in his report that dropping the case does not lessen the severity of the crimes that prosecutors allege Trump committed.
+
+It was published at [Department of Justice / Special Counsel Jack Smith](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith)[^21]
+
+[^21]: @RalphHightower: Grab it now before Trump's gestapo takes it down on January 20, 2025.
+
+###  Special Counsel, Jack Smith, Letter to US Attorney General, Merrick Garland
+
+[U.S. Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/)
+[Jack Smith Special Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith)
+
+January 7, 2025 
+
+DELIVERY BY HAND 
+
+The Honorable [Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States](https://www.justice.gov/)
+Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building 
+950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
+Washington, D.C. 20530 
+
+Re: Final Report of the Special Counsel Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8 
+
+Dear Mr. Attorney General: 
+
+In the fall of 2022, former President Donald J. Trump was a subject of two separate criminal investigations by the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/). The first was an investigation into whether any person violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election. The second investigation focused on the possession of highly classified documents at Mr. Trump's [Mar-a-Lago social club](https://www.maralagoclub.com/) following his presidency. 
+
+On November 15, 2022, Mr. Trump declared his candidacy to unseat [President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/), who had previously stated his intention to stand for reelection. Mr. Trump's announcement created a highly unusual situation, in which the [Department](https://www.justice.gov/), an agency within the [Executive Branch](https://www.whitehouse.gov/) headed by [President Biden](https://www.whitehouse.gov/), was conducting criminal investigations regarding his newly declared challenger. Based on a longstanding recognition that "in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution," you, as the [Attorney General](https://www.justice.gov/), promptly did so here to "underscore[] the [Department's](https://www.justice.gov/) commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters." [Attorney General](https://www.justice.gov/) Merrick B. Garland, Remarks on the Appointment of a [Special Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith), Washington, D.C. (Nov. 18, 2022). 
+
+On the day that I was appointed, I pledged that I would exercise independent judgment, follow the best traditions of the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/), and conduct my work expeditiously and thoroughly to reach whatever outcome the facts and law dictated. With the aid of an outstanding team, that is what I did. Upon my appointment, I organized a staff of experienced career federal prosecutors, and together we conducted the investigations and subsequent prosecutions under our mandate, consistent with the [Department's](https://www.justice.gov/) traditions of integrity and nonpartisanship that have guided all of us throughout our careers.
+
+Attorney General Edward H. Levi, who assumed the Department's helm in the wake of Watergate, summed up those traditions best: 
+
+[O]ne paramount concern must always guide our way. This is the keeping of the faith in the essential decency and even-handedness in the law, a faith which is the strength of the law and which must be continually renewed or else it is lost. In a society that too easily accepts the notion that everything can be manipulated, it is important to make clear that the administration of federal justice seeks to be impartial and fair .... 
+
+Address to the Los Angeles County Bar Association, Los Angeles, CA (Nov. 18, 1976). Attorney General Levi's remarks, shared 46 years to the day before my appointment, ring as true now as they did then. 
+
+I have been a career prosecutor in local, national, and international settings over the last three decades, working shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of prosecutors in that time. The prosecutors and staff of the [Special Counsel's](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) are, in my estimation, without peer in terms of accomplishment, capability, judgment, and work ethic. More importantly, in my book, they are people of great decency and the highest personal integrity. The intense public scrutiny of our [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith), threats to their safety, and relentless unfounded attacks on their character and integrity did not deter them from fulfilling their oaths and professional obligations. These are intensely good people who did hard things well. I will not forget the sacrifices they made and the personal resilience they and their families have shown over the last two years. Our country owes them a debt of gratitude for their unwavering service and dedication to the rule of law. Without pause, they have upheld the [Department's](https://www.justice.gov/) commitment to the impartial and independent pursuit of justice. For that, I am grateful-as I know you are as well. 
+
+Staffed by some of the most experienced prosecutors in the [Department](https://www.justice.gov/), my [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) operated under the same [Department](https://www.justice.gov/) policies and procedures that guide all federal prosecutors. The regulations under which I was appointed required that we do so, see 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), and our work benefited from those processes. The [Department](https://www.justice.gov/) has long recognized that proceeding with "uniformity of policy ... is necessary to the prestige of federal law." Robert H. Jackson, "The Federal Prosecutor" (April 1, 1940). As a result, throughout our work we regularly consulted the Justice Manual, the Department's publicly available guidebook on policies and procedures, and adhered to its requirements. 
+
+Our work rested upon the fundamental value of our democracy that we exist as "a government of laws, and not of men." John Adams, Novanglus, No. VII at 84 (Mar. 6, 1775). In making decisions as [Special Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith), I considered as a first principle whether our actions would contribute to upholding the rule of law, and acted accordingly. Our committed adherence to the rule of law is why we not only followed [Department](https://www.justice.gov/) policies and procedures, but strictly observed legal requirements and dutifully respected the judicial decisions and precedents our prosecutions prompted. That is also why, in my decision-making, I heeded the imperative that "[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law," United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196,220 (1882). Simply put: the [Department of Justice's](https://www.justice.gov/)'m guiding mandate, which my [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) strove to uphold, is that power, politics, influence, status, wealth, fear, and favor should not impede justice under the law. 
+
+When I assumed responsibility for the matters you assigned to me, I came to the work with no preconceived notion of what the just outcome of the investigations would be. I was not yet familiar with all of the relevant facts and had not yet researched the relevant law. Depending upon what the investigations revealed, I was equally comfortable closing the investigations or moving forward with prosecutions in one or both of the matters, having done both in high profile matters throughout my career. 
+
+To make prosecutorial determinations, my [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) gathered relevant evidence and examined whether that evidence established violations of federal criminal law. In doing so, I was guided by the [Principles of Federal Prosecution](https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution), a series of considerations designed to promote the fair and evenhanded application of the law. As set forth in my Report, after conducting thorough investigations, I found that, with respect to both Mr. Trump's unprecedented efforts to unlawfully retain power after losing the 2020 election and his unlawful retention of classified documents after leaving office, the Principles compelled prosecution. Indeed, Mr. Trump's cases represented ones "in which the offense [was] the most flagrant, the public haim the greatest, and the proof the most certain." Jackson, "The Federal Prosecutor." 
+
+As directed by the Principles, I made my decision in these cases without regard to Mr. Trump's "political association, activities, or beliefs," or the possible personal or professional consequences of a prosecution for me or any member of my [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith). Justice Manual § 9-27.260. "[T]he likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his cause," or the converse, were not factors in my prosecutive decisions. Id. § 9-27.220 (Comment). My [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) also adhered at all times to the [Department's](https://www.justice.gov/) policy against interfering in elections. As a former Chief of the Department's [Public Integrity Section](https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-pin), it was important to me, as it is to you, that we adhere to both the letter and spirit of this policy. I can assure you that neither I nor the prosecutors on my team would have tolerated or taken part in any action by our [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) for partisan political purposes. Throughout my service as [Special Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith), seeking to influence the election one way or the other, or seeking to interfere in its outcome, played no role in our work. My [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) had one north star: to follow the facts and law wherever they led. Nothing more and nothing less. 
+
+While I relied greatly on the counsel, judgment, and advice of our team, I want it to be clear that the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully. To have done otherwise on the facts developed during our work would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and a public servant. After nearly 30 years of public service, that is a choice I could not abide. 
+
+It is equally important for me to make clear that nobody within the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/) ever sought to interfere with, or improperly influence, my prosecutorial decision making. The regulations under which I was appointed provided you with the authority to countermand my decisions, 28 C.F.R. § 600.7, but you did not do so. Nor did you, the Deputy [Attorney General](https://www.justice.gov/), or members of your staff ever attempt to improperly influence my decision as to whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump. And to all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable. 
+
+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. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters. The facts, as we uncovered them in our investigation and as set forth in my Report, matter. Experienced prosecutors know that you cannot control outcomes, you can only do your job the right way for the right reasons. I conclude our work confident that we have done so, and that we have met fully our obligations to the [Department](https://www.justice.gov/) and to our [country](https://www.usa.gov). 
+
+Accompanying this letter, I am providing you "a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the [Special Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith)." 28 C.F.R. § 600.8. The Report consists of two volumes: Volume One addresses the Election Case, and Volume Two addresses the Classified Documents Case. I understand that you are considering whether all or part of my Report can be made public, consistent with applicable legal restrictions. See 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). Both volumes minimize the identification of witnesses and co-conspirators, consistent with accepted [Department](https://www.justice.gov/) practice, and we have provided a redacted version of Volume Two that identifies certain information that remains under seal or is restricted from public disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Because Volume Two discusses the conduct of Mr. Trump's alleged co-conspirators in the Classified Documents Case, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, consistent with Department policy, Volume Two should not be publicly released while their case remains pending. 
+
+Though not required, prior to finalizing the Report, my [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) provided an opportunity for counsel for Mr. Trump to review both volumes, and for counsel for his former co-defendants in the Classified Documents Case, Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira, to review Volume Two. After their review, counsel for Mr. Trump wrote a letter to you, and we have provided a written response to you, both of which you will find as an Addendum to the Report. 
+
+With this Report, my service and the service of my staff is complete. I thank you for the trust you placed in me and my team and for affording us the independence necessary to conduct our work. Public service is a privilege, and we deeply appreciate the opportunity to serve our [Nation](https:www.usa.gov/) in seeking to uphold the rule of law. 
+
+Sincely,
+
+JACK SMITH 
+
+### Report by [Special Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith), Jack Smith.
+
+#### Except from the Washington Post
+
+“The [Department’s](https://www.justice.gov/) view that the [Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/) prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a [President](https://www.whitehouse.gov/) is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the [Government’s](https://www.usa.gov/)proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the [Presidency](https://www whitehouse.gov/), the [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. The [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) did not find any case in which a criminal defendant was charged with insurrection for acting within the government to maintain power, as opposed to overthrowing it or thwarting it from the outside.”
+
+#### From the [Department of Justice (DOJ) Special Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) 
+
+VI. CONCLUSION 
+
+On remand from the [Supreme Court's](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) decision in Trump, the district court set a litigation schedule whereby the parties would submit briefs regarding whether any material in the superseding indictment was subject to presidential immunity. ECF No. 233. The parties were in the middle of that process when the results of the presidential election made clear that Mr. Trump would be inaugurated as [President of the United States](https://www.whitehouse.gov/) on January 20, 2025. As described above, it has long been the [Department's](https://www.justice.gov/) interpretation that the [Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/) forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting [President](https://www.whitehouse.gov/), but the election results raised for the first time the question of the lawful course when a private citizen who has already been indicted is then elected [President](https://www.whitehouse.gov/). The [Department](https://www.justice.gov/) determined that the case must be dismissed without prejudice before Mr. Trump takes office, and the [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) therefore moved to dismiss the indictment on November 25, 2024. See ECF No. 281. The district court granted the motion the same day. ECF No. 283. 
+
+The [Department's](https://www.justice.gov/) view that the [Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/) prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a [President](https://www.whitehouse.gov/) is categorical and does not tum on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the [Government's](https://www.usa.gov/) proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the [Presidency](https://www.whitehouse.gov/), the [Office](https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith) assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.
+
+@RalphHightower: Trump would have been sentenced to prison.