Jack Smith’s “Final Report” Declares Trump Guilty; Trump Declares Smith to be a “Lamebrain.”

Jack Smith’s Final Report has been released by the Department of Justice. In it, Smith claims that if Trump had not been elected, Smith’s case against Trump would have likely resulted in Trump’s conviction. Smith also attempted to defend his actions, which were widely seen as totally partisan and political, claiming that his determinations were free from political interference.

“Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

Trump faced four charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, or attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.  Smith revealed that his team actively considered charging Trump with violating the Insurrection Act, but that he decided against adding that charge because of the “litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute.”

“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report said.

Though Smith felt certain that he could secure the conviction of Trump on multiple felonies dealing with Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, he said this despite his admission that, “his office did not obtain “direct evidence” of Trump’s “intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6.”

Whatever Smith might be able to assert in his Final Report, the fact is he was not able to prove these assertions in court, where, had the case continued, his assertions and allegations would have been subject to cross-examination and other defense challenges. In issuing his report, Smith can be as grandiose as he wishes in touting the strengths of his case and the culpability of Mr. Trump, but the fact is that at this point, with the cases dismissed, releasing his comments about Trump at this point in time is nothing more than defamation for which he is provided immunity.

Read Smith’s Final Report.

Trump responded by proclaiming his “total innocence” on Truth Social, and added that, “Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

PREVIOUS REPORT:

Appeals Court Approves the Release of Jack Smith’s “Final Report.”

The 11th Circuit has overturned a ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that blocked the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Final Report detailing his investigation and findings related to President-elect Donald Trump.

In a very brief order, providing no guidance into its rationale, the Appellate Court cleared the way for Smith’s Final Report to be released.

Upon submitting his Final Report, Smith resigned. “The Special Counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on January 7, 2025, and separated from the Department on January 10,” the DOJ stated.

After Trump’s election victory on November 5th, Smith, who had brought and prosecuted two cases against Trump — cases Mr. Trump said had no merit and demonstrated the “weaponization” of the Department of Justice against the foremost political opponent of the Biden Administration — was required to dismiss both cases. One of the cases had previously been dismissed by Judge Cannon and was on appeal by Smith. Judge Cannon determined in that case — the case involved the Presidential Papers taken to Mar-a-Lago by Mr. Trump — that Smith lacked the authority to act as a United States prosecutor as his appointment to the job had not complied with law. The other dismissed case pertained to the January 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol, and that case had stalled after the Supreme Court provided guidance as to presidential immunity for the President’s official acts.

But despite Smith being required to dismiss his two cases, Smith refused to let go and as an alternative to his failed prosecutions, appears in the release of his Final Report to seek to smear Mr. Trump’s name in a manner he was never able to achieve in court. Of course, we haven’t seen his Final Report, nor have we read any leaked version, but such reports typically discuss the investigative findings and the merits (or lack of merits) of prosecution on these facts. They are, obviously, highly skewed to reflect the agenda of the Special Prosecutor, and Smith’s Final Report would be expected to attempt to defame Mr. Trump in a manner immune from being challenged in a defamation lawsuit. Additionally, Mr. Trump remains under a “gag order” from New York judge Juan Merchan, and could be barred from even addressing, let alone refuting, Smith’s assertions.

Interestingly, though not discussed in Judge Cannon’s Order blocking the release of Smith’s Final Report, there is a thoroughly legitimate question on what authority he acts given Judge Cannon’s determination that he was not properly appointed to the post he holds. While that decision is on appeal, until and unless it is reversed, Smith should have no authority to take any actions as the Special Prosecutor, including issuing the proposed Final Report.

Judge Cannon’s Order prohibits Smith and the Department of Justice from releasing his Final Report until the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals rules on a motion submitted by Trump’s co-defendants in the presidential documents case.

Read Judge Cannon’s Order.

“Pending resolution of the Emergency Motion filed in the Eleventh Circuit … Attorney General Garland, the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Smith, all of their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with such individuals are temporarily enjoined” from releasing or transmitting the Final Report, Cannon’s order stated.

Federal law requires that Special Counsels provide the Attorney General, when their work effort concludes, with a final report “explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” This requirement opens a huge door for Mr. Smith, never an impartial prosecutor but instead a dogged partisan, to besmirch, demean, impugn, and defame Mr. Trump with impunity.

Trump’s attorneys, who received a draft copy of Smith’s Final Report, wrote to AG Merrick Garland that release of the report would violate “fundamental norms regarding the presumption of innocence, including with respect to third parties unnecessarily impugned by Smith’s false claims.”

“Because Smith has proposed an unlawful course of action, you must countermand his plan and remove him promptly,” Trump’s lawyers added that, “if Smith is not removed, then the handling of his report should be deferred to President Trump’s incoming Attorney General.”

Additionally in an Emergency Motion filed in court on January 6, 2025, attorneys for the remaining defendants in the presidential documents case made clear that their clients face continued criminal prosecution, and that the public release of the Final Report by a disqualified and illegitimate Special Counsel could prejudice those proceedings:

“Despite this Court’s concluding that Smith is unconstitutionally appointed and funded, and
despite ongoing proceedings against Defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, Special
Counsel Smith, in defiance of this Court’s rulings, is determined to have the final word by pushing forward with issuing and transmitting a final report under 28 C.F.R. § 608(c) (the “Final Report”) which Attorney General Garland is certain to make immediately public. These Defendants will irreparably suffer harm as civilian casualties of the Government’s impermissible and contumacious utilization of political lawfare to include release of the unauthorized Report. The Final Report relies on materials to which Smith, as disqualified special counsel, is no longer entitled access—making his attempt to share such materials with the public highly improper,” the attorney’s wrote.

Read the Full Emergency Motion.

As expected, the Department of Justice filed an opposition to the motion in the 11th Circuit, advising that Jack Smith has already transmitted his Final Report to the DOJ, so there is nothing that can be enjoined with respect to that activity. The Department also advised that it intended to release the volume of the Final Report that relates to Mr. Trump, “in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter.” The DOJ said that Trump’s request for an injunction was “unwarranted” and “unnecessary” and that all of his other stated arguments “are without merit.”

Read the DOJ’s Opposition to Motion for Injunction.

It appears that having been stymied in their effort to try Donald Trump in a court of law, Smith and Attorney General Merrick Garland are determined to try him in the court of public opinion, by releasing a report filled with slime, so-called facts which were not subjected to cross-examination, and which Mr. Trump may not even be able to refute under the terms of the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan in New York. By releasing this report in this manner, Smith and Garland have the ability to completely defame Mr. Trump without him having the right to file a defamation lawsuit against them.

The other issue presented by the release of the Final Report is should Trump refute it or ignore it, no matter how false and purposefully defamatory it may be? Refuting it just bogs him down in a non-ending discussion of these items, where his focus needs to be on the future, on his leadership vision, rather than back in the mud with Jack Smith. This is a difficult decision, as the default position is always to defend your own honor when you have been wrongfully defamed, but in this case, the worthless allegations will only serve to obscure the positive forward-looking vision he needs to convey to the American people as he is inaugurated.

It seems the Democrats, who promised a “smooth transition” to Mr. Trump, are instead preparing to deliver him a double-whammy within days of his Inauguration as the 47th President: They will try to force him to be sentenced by Judge Merchan on January 10th, so that all the broadcast networks and the mainstream print media can report less than a week later that, “for the first time in U.S. history a convicted felon has been sworn in as President of the United States.” And at about the same time, they will seek to release Jack Smith’s Final Report, which undoubtedly will viciously smear Mr. Trump, making him look tarnished and soiled on his Inauguration Day.

It likely takes a special kind of person to be so vicious and nasty. Messrs. Smith and Garland unfortunately seem to fit that bill.

We should add, moreover, that even if the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals should grant the injunction and prohibit the release of Smith’s Final Report, we believe it will “somehow” get leaked to the press, and that the NY Times will publish it in full, claiming it has an obligation to inform the public on this vital issue. If pressed on its decision to publish the scathing report, the Times will say it received the document prior to the injunction being requested, and it is not, in any case, subject to the injunction. That’s just how things work.

PREVIOUS REPORT ON SMITH DISMISSING TRUMP CASES:

Jack Smith was Forced to Dismiss Trump Cases After Election Victory

Special counsel Jack Smith has dismissed his election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump in Federal court in Washington, D.C. He is also abandoming his appeal in the classified documents case that was previously dismissed in Federal court in Miami, Florida.

Read the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.

Smith’s Motion to Dismiss stated that, “After careful consideration,” the Department of Justice has determined that, “the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated.”

But Smith, ever scornful of President-Elect Donald Trump, could not leave without turning the knife: “That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind.”

To add insult to injury, Smith made certain to request dismissal “without prejudice,” meaning that he’d like to see the case revived in the future, if possible. “Based on the Department’s interpretation of the Constitution, the Government moves for dismissal without prejudice of the superseding indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a).”

Smith made it clear that, “The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, just hours later, ordered the case dropped “without prejudice” to it being resurrected when and if possible.

Read Judge Chutkan’s Order.

At the same time, Smith dropped his appeal of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss a case that accused Mr. Trump of illegally retaining classified records and obstructing an investigation. Judge Cannon famously ruled that Jack Smith had no power to act as a Special Prosecutor, that he had not been properly appointed and could not represent the United States as a prosecutor. That decision should have shut down Smith in the D.C. case as well, but Smith (and Judge Chutkan) continued as if Judge Cannon had never ruled on Smith’s authority.

Read Smith’s Motion To Dismiss The Appeal As To Donald J. Trump.

The reason the appeal is titled in this manner is because Smith has no intention of letting go on his grip of co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, and the case against them “will continue because, unlike defendant Trump, no principle of temporary immunity applies to them.” Note to Smith: Like it or not, once you’ve resigned, or been fired on January 20th, the case against the co-defendants will be dismissed by the Trump Administration.

Jack Smith has been a remarkably unsuccessful prosecutor. Not only in these cases against Trump, but his track record is filled with reversals.

After a two year effort to use the justice system to destroy President Biden’s principal political opponent, Smith has come up dry, the verdict having been handed down by the American people on November 5th. Smith’s cases were widely seen by the American public as “lawfare” by the Biden Administration to target Biden’s political opponent, an action never before taken by any Amerian President, and considered a hallmark of a third-world banana republic.

As the incoming President, Donald Trump will have unquestioned power to stop all Federal cases he deems unjust, unwise, or unsavory. So, without a doubt, unless Jack Smith has already bolted by January 20th, he’ll surely be shown the door a very short while after noon on that day.

But Trump’s powers as President do not necessarily extend to the several state-level prosecutions and civil cases brought by Democrat prosecutors in places such as Fulton County, Georgia, and New York County, New York.

The Georgia case, which raised election-interference charges, has been at a standstill since the prosecutor, Fani Willis, was credibly accused of being in a romantic relationship with her special counsel, Nathan Wade. The defendants in that case (Trump and several co-defendants) have asked the Georgia Court of Appeals to throw the case out.

Meanwhile, in Manhattan, in another case reeking of Democrat partisanship, Mr. Trump was “convicted” — “convicted” is in quotes because the case was filled with legal error from start to finish– of 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with payments he made after the 2016 presidential campaign, which the prosecutor claimed, incredibly, were done to interfere with the election. In New York, an appeal is not allowed until after sentencing, and the judge, Juan Merchan, has delayed, and delayed, and delayed sentencing Trump, all to prevent the appeals court from reviewing his hatchet-job and throwing out the case. He recently ruled that sentencing would be put on hold during Trump’s new term, indictating that Marchan would like to hold some leverage over Trump during his presidency and then throw him in jail when he is 82 at the end of his term. So warped is this judge’s view of justice.

We think that the delay of sentencing beyond one year from the date of the conviction will allow Trump’s lawyers to appeal this case, and from what we’ve seen of the shenanigans in the courtroom, the abject and corrupt partisanship by the District Attorney and the judge, that the so-called convicions will not survive appellate review, and this will not be because Donald Trump is President, but because the case was meritless from the start.

There are still other cases against Mr. Trump that are on appeal, but these are civil cases in New York. You’ll remember the case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James and the insufferable judge Arthur Engoron, who determined that Trump should be required to pay $489 million in fines for defrauding mortgage lenders who said they were never defrauded and that they would be pleased to continue to do business with the Trump Organization. A New York appeals court heard oral arguments on Sept. 26th, and a ruling is awaited.

Then there was E. Jean Carroll, who brought and won two lawsuits against Trump. In the first lawsuit she claimed that Trump secually abused her in the dressing room at a Manhatten department store on an unknown day in an unknown year sometime in the 1990’s. Trump insisted on his innocence and claimed the story was fabricated. He said he had never met the woman, eccept one time in a long receiving line where he shook hands with a lot of people he did not know, including Carroll and her husband. Carroll sued again, this time for defamation, and won again. Trump was found liable for both sexual abuse and for defamation, and was ordered to pay Carroll a total of $88.3 million. Trump denies everything that Carroll claims and has appealed. Carroll’s first case had been barred by a statute of limitations, since the assertion claimed the assault occured in the 1990’s. But the New York State legislature amended the law, allowing her to file her lawsuit.