Ad

Supported by

Jack Smith wrote that Donald Trump would have been convicted if the case had been able to continue and explained why he didn’t bring his fees for inciting Jan. 6 at the Capitol.

By Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage

Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage write on legal issues, old instances of Crook opposed to the president -elect Trump.

The Justice Department released a 137-page volume early Tuesday morning, showing the main points of the investigation that former special counsel Jack Smith led to President Donald J. Trump to overturn his loss from the 2020 election.

The publication of the report, which Mr. Trump’s legal team had fought vehement . Because Trump won the 2024 elections, prosecutors were forced through a binding policy of the Ministry of Justice to leave the opposite case.

The criminal investigators, according to the report, interviewed more than 250 people and received testimony from the Grand Jury of more than 55 witnesses, some after long battles about the executive privilege. Smith said the Chamber Committee paintings that tested the attack against the Capitol was only “a small component of the office investigation record. “

Mr. Smith has written a volume on the separate rates he has presented, accusing SR. Trump for refusing to return the assets of the qualified documents after leaving in 2021. This volume remains outside the public eye for now because the Remains of this case remain opposite active to the fact that two Trump assistants have accused of co-conspirators.

Here are 4 problems with the volume of election cases.

In what was equivalent to the maximum vital conclusion of his report, Mr. Smith said that he was sure of his team of prosecutors and investigators had accumulated enough evidence to condemned M. Trump had been tried to be tried.

The report made approximately 30 pages that counted the main points of how MR. Trump has been involved in torco plots. Much of this was already in public opinion through the accusation in the case and a long note of evidence that Mr. Smith presented in October as a component of the consequences of the resolution of the Supreme Court that Mr. Trump has appreciated the alleged immunity for his official acts. as president.

We have recovering the content of the article.

JavaScript turn on in the configuration of your browser.

Thank you for your patience while we check the access. If you are in reading mode, please leave it and adjust it to your Times account, or subscribe to all the time.

Thanks for your patience while we review access.

Already subscribed?  Connect.

Do you want all the time?  Subscribe.

Advertisement