Five takeaways from Smith’s report on Trump’s 2020 election case

Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat are contained in a recent report by the special counsel who spent two years investigating.

Much of what is contained in its 140 pages was already known, thanks to a congressional inquiry in 2022 and previous court cases by the report’s author, Jack Smith.

But he sheds new light on some of the evidence Smith’s team found and details his thoughts on some of the finer legal points.

Trump, who will return to the White House next week, took no time to respond to the release of the report, maintaining his innocence and labeling Smith “disgraced.”

Here are five takeaways from the report.

The report covers the incident at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 – when Trump supporters invaded the building to try to thwart Biden’s victory certificate after hearing Trump, the defeated candidate, speak on the Ellipse in Washington DC.

“Mr. Trump’s words incited his supporters to commit acts of physical violence,” the report said.

It continues: “While Mr. Trump at one point also told his supporters to ‘peacefully and patriotically make (their) voices heard,’ he used the word ‘struggle’ more than ten times in the speech.”

Trump has vowed to pardon many convicted of crimes related to the riot when he returns to office, and has sought to recast it as a “day of love.”

His defenders have dismissed the idea that he deliberately incited the crowd, pointing to the “peaceful” quote Smith highlighted above.

The report addresses the basis on which Trump was indicted, making it clear that Smith’s team considered filing an “incitement to sedition” charge against the then-president.

The document says Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech on the Ellipse could meet the Supreme Court’s definition of advocacy, especially when viewed alongside his “lengthy and misleading narrative of voter fraud.”

The report suggests that the day’s violence was “foreseeable” for Trump, for example, and that he wanted to “take advantage” of the events to delay Biden’s certification.

But Trump was ultimately not charged with inciting it because Smith’s team found no “direct evidence” of intent to cause “the full spectrum of violence” in the Capitol riots, making a conviction doubtful.

The document also states that “other powerful charges were available.”

Several of the men charged and convicted of involvement in the Capitol attack cited Trump’s influence as a motivating factor, the report said.

He cites some of the incidents, including Alex Harkrider, who asked to be released from prison before his trial, arguing that “like thousands of others” he was simply “responding to Trump’s demands.”

Another man, David Mehaffi, who was seeking a reduced sentence, cited Trump’s speech and added: “I trusted the president and that was a big mistake.”

What Smith fails to recognize in his report is that it was in these men’s legitimate interests to shift responsibility away from them.

In repeated conversations, day after day, Trump asked his vice president to use his position as president of the Senate to change the outcome of the election without guaranteeing the results, Smith’s report said.

Pence refused, and Trump once told him that “hundreds of thousands” of people would “hate his guts” if he didn’t give in.

The public pressure campaign on his replacement continued. In a speech, Trump said he hoped Pence would, but if he didn’t, “I’m not going to like it that much.”

Before leaving the White House to deliver his speech on the Ellipse before the attack on the Capitol, Trump called Pence one last time, Smith says. When the vice president told him on the call that he didn’t have the authority to carry out Trump’s wishes, Trump told his staff to reinsert language he had written against Pence back into his speech.

After the speech, Trump supporters roamed the Capitol corridors chanting “fire Mike Pence” and seeking offices.

Smith recounts his experiences with law enforcement during a mob attack on the Capitol building in which at least 140 officers were attacked.

He noted that 123 defendants were subsequently charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to law enforcement.

“This violence had a lasting impact,” the report says, noting that 223 officers “suffered ‘unseen injuries’, including depression and other psychological trauma.”

A footnote describes the officers’ feelings of “survivor’s guilt,” “shell shock” and “an inability to move on from that day.”