Advertisement

Supported by

The report, which said that the workplace of the Special Council was “completely behind” the benefits of the accusation, was equivalent to an ordinary reprimand through the elected president.

By Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage

Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage write about legal issues, including the former criminal cases against President-elect Donald J. Trump.

Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted President-elect Donald J. Trump on charges of illegally seeking to cling to power after losing the 2020 election, said in a final report released early Tuesday that the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Mr. Trump in a trial, had his 2024 election victory not made it impossible for the prosecution to continue.

“The opinion of the Department that the Constitution prohibits the continuous accusation and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not revolve around the seriousness of the imputed crimes, the solidity of the evidence of the government or the merits of the accusation, which are completely backed, “Smith wrote.

He continued: “In fact, however, for the choice of Mr. Trump and the imminent date back to the presidency, the workplace evaluated that eligible evidence was sufficient to download and a conviction to trial. “

The Department of Justice delivered the volume of 137 pages, which represents part of the general report of Mr. Sánchez. Tuesday.

Former special lawyer Jack Smith was considered that his opposite history of the president -elect Donald J. Trump in a report published early Tuesday, saying that Trump would have been sentenced, but by the policy of the Ministry of Justice opposite to the presidents of the search exercise presidents .

The report amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of a president-elect, capping a momentous legal saga that saw the man now poised to regain the powers of the nation’s highest office charged with crimes that struck at the heart of American democracy. And although Mr. Smith resigned as special counsel late last week, his recounting of the case also served as a reminder of the vast array of evidence and detailed accounting of Mr. Trump’s actions that he had marshaled.

We have recovered the content of the article.

Turn on JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thanks for your patience while we determine access. If you are in reading mode, leave and log in to your Times account or subscribe to all time.

Thanks for your patience while we review access.

Already signed?  Connect.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Ad