Five takeaways from the report on Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election

Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat are exposed in a final report from the special prosecutor who spent two years investigating him.

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

But he sheds new light on some of the evidence Smith’s team uncovered and lays out his own thinking on some of the trickier legal points.

Trump, who returns to the White House next week, was quick to respond to the report’s release, maintaining his innocence and calling Smith “deranged.”

Here are five takeaways from the report.

The report discusses the riot at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters invaded the building in an attempt to thwart the certification of Biden’s victory, after hearing a speech on the Ellipse in Washington DC of Trump, the defeated candidate.

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

It goes on to note: “Although Mr. Trump also at one point asked his supporters to ‘make (their) voices heard peacefully and patriotically,’ he used the word ‘fight’ more than ten times in his speech. »

Trump pledged upon his return to office to pardon many of those convicted of crimes related to the riot, which he sought to turn into a “day of love.”

His defenders rejected the idea that he deliberately incited the crowd, pointing to the “peaceful” quote Smith underlined above.

The report addresses why Trump was prosecuted, making clear that Smith’s team was considering bringing an “incitement of insurrection” charge against the then-president.

The document says Trump’s January 6, 2021 Ellipse speech could meet the Supreme Court’s definition of incitement, especially when compared to his “long and misleading account of election fraud.”

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

But Trump ultimately wasn’t charged with incitement because Smith’s team didn’t find “direct evidence” of his intent to provoke “the full extent of violence” during the Capitol riot , which makes his conviction uncertain.

The document further notes that there were “other powerful charges available.”

Several men charged and convicted for their involvement in the Capitol attack pointed to Trump’s influence as a motivating factor, according to the report.

He cites some rioters, including Alex Harkrider, who requested his release before his trial, saying that “like thousands of others”, he was only “responding to the pleas” of Trump.

Another man, David Mehaffi, seeking mitigation at sentencing, cited Trump’s speech and added: “I trusted the president and it was a big mistake.”

What Smith fails to acknowledge in his report is that it was in these men’s legal interests to absolve themselves of responsibility.

In repeated conversations, day after day, Trump asked his vice president to use his ministerial position as president of the Senate to change the outcome of the election by not certifying the results, Smith’s report said.

Pence refused, and on one occasion Trump told him that “hundreds of thousands” of people would “hate him” if he did not concede.

The pressure campaign on his deputy continued publicly. In a speech, Trump said he hoped Pence would do it, but if he didn’t, “I wouldn’t like him as much.”

Just before leaving the White House to deliver his speech at the Ellipse before the attack on the Capitol, Trump called Pence one last time, Smith said. When the vice president told him on the call that he did not have the authority to carry out Trump’s wishes, Trump asked staff to reinsert into his speech some language he had drafted earlier aimed at Pence.

Moments after the speech, Trump supporters roamed the halls of the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and canvassing offices for him.

Smith describes the experiences of law enforcement on duty when the mob stormed the Capitol building, during which at least 140 officers were assaulted.

He points out that 123 defendants were subsequently charged with use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or serious injury to law enforcement.

“This violence had lasting consequences,” the report said, noting that 223 police officers suffered “‘invisible injuries,’ including depression and other forms of psychological trauma.”

A footnote provides further insight into feelings of “survivor’s guilt”, “shell shock” and “inability to move on” among police officers.