The Democrats simply can’t believe it. What they’ve been waiting for has finally arrived.
That’s why Trump was stunned by the twist of events from this one huge report releasing.
Democrats were fighting hard to make sure that Special Counsel Jack Smith was able to release his final report in the January 6, 2021 indictment case brought against Donald Trump. They were expecting dam*ing information to be in the report and to leave a black eye on Donald Trump as he heads into the office, and maybe even potentially lay the groundwork for an impeachment trial if the Democrats were able to win back control of Congress in the 2026 midterms.
They’re probably wishing that Jack never released the report at all now. The reason? Well, their entire narrative around Donald Trump has now been blown up by their infamous Special Counsel Jack Smith himself. His report effectively exonerates Donald Trump entirely, and it explains how the Democrats have been wasting their time and lying to the American people about January 6 for four years now.
Special Counsel Jack Smith Explains Why Trump Wasn’t Charged with Insurrection
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s actions surrounding the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot sheds new light on the decision not to charge him with insurrection. Smith explained that his office ultimately refrained from bringing charges of insurrection against Trump because they were unable to establish that the events of January 6 went beyond a riot.
Smith’s detailed explanation in the report points out the significant legal challenges involved in charging Trump with insurrection, particularly because the relevant statute offers no clear guidance on what evidence would be necessary to prove an insurrection or differentiate it from a riot. The lack of legal precedent on such a charge played a key role in Smith’s decision-making process.
In his report, Smith wrote: “The special counsel’s office 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 that occurred on January 6.” While acknowledging that there were “reasonable arguments” that Trump incited violence, Smith emphasized that no conclusive evidence tied Trump directly to the intention of inciting an insurrection or the full scale of the violence that unfolded on that day.
One of the more significant legal outcomes Smith noted was that the charge of insurrection carried substantial risk. Bringing such a charge could have resulted in “unwarranted litigation risk,” given the uncertainty about how the courts would interpret the elements of the statute. Smith’s office also pointed out that no precedent exists for prosecuting someone for inciting or aiding an insurrection under the specific statute in question.
New Jack Smith report reveals why Smith didn't charge Donald Trump with insurrection: Because January 6 was not an insurrection. Or at least Smith was not confident he could convince even a deep-blue DC jury that it was. And whatever it was, he could not prove Trump incited it.…
— Byron York (@ByronYork) January 14, 2025
Additionally, Smith’s decision to refrain from charging Trump came despite other legal challenges the former president faced. This includes the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, which found that Trump had engaged in insurrection in a bid to disqualify him from the state’s ballot. However, that ruling was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Smith’s office also noted that Trump had been impeached for allegedly inciting an insurrection, a charge that also did not result in a conviction.
Former Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who served on the January 6 Select Committee, responded to the findings in Smith’s report on social media. Cheney pointed out that the Department of Justice (DOJ) reached “the same essential conclusions as the Select Committee.” However, she also noted that the final report from the January 6 Committee had suggested that Trump violated the Insurrection Act, a distinction that Smith’s report did not echo in its analysis.
Smith also addressed the broader implications of prosecuting Trump under the Insurrection Act. His report made it clear that no one has ever been prosecuted under this statute for allegedly inciting, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to rebellion or insurrection. He stated that the few cases that exist appear to involve defendants who were directly engaged in rebellion or insurrection, but no evidence had been found to suggest that Trump was directly involved in such actions himself.
Despite refraining from charging Trump with insurrection, Smith did provide a pointed assessment regarding Trump’s actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election. He suggested that Trump might have faced conviction in connection with the 2020 election case if he had not won the 2024 election, though he dismissed any notion that political factors — specifically the Biden administration’s influence — played a role in his decision to bring charges. “Any suggestion that the Biden administration influenced my decision is laughable,” Smith remarked.
You want to know what a dirty “legal wrap-up smear” the freshly-released Jack Smith report is?
The report admits they contemplated but DECLINED charging Trump with a violation of the “insurrection act”. Which means they tried to impeach Trump for something prosecutors decided he… pic.twitter.com/hcPeDJdu1U
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) January 14, 2025
Be sure to stay tuned to the Conservative Column for any breaking political news.
