Meet Jack Smith, a man who might currently hold the title of the most exasperated individual in Washington. Having navigated the choppy waters of investigation and personal vilification for two long years, finds himself now out of employment with nothing but four untried penalties and a partially-revealed written report as a testament to his endeavor. In the year 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland conferred upon Smith the responsibility to supervise the governmental probes into the activities of Donald Trump, the former president.
Smith’s area of focus included Trump’s alleged involvement in the Capitol incident of January 6, 2021, ignited by his stalwart supporters aiming to put a brake on the certification of Joe Biden’s election. In addition, the discovery of classified documents in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida added another layer of intrigue. However, his victory in the November presidential election led to the official closure of the case against him, aligned with the procedural requirements of the Department of Justice.
A special counsel’s report on their proceedings was needed according to regulations. Currently, this stands as the last public documentation concerning the probe. Unexpectedly, on January 14th, a section of the report associated with the January 6 episode was made accessible to the masses, marking the end of a court order that previously prevented its unveiling.
The report doesn’t reveal any groundbreaking details, as most of its content aligns with existing public knowledge gained through court filings. This includes an amended indictment, filed by Smith in the summer of 2024, following the decision of the US Supreme Court that granted constitutional immunity to presidents for their official acts executed during their tenure.
The report contains speculation that Trump was disseminating misinformation about election fraud. It alludes to Trump’s efforts to encourage officials in pivotal states to disregard the electoral results, and inspiring unnecessary investigations by the Department of Justice officials to influence states for action. Moreover, it was suggested that Trump put pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to utilize his ceremonial role in an attempt to reverse the election results. Interestingly, these are not new revelations.
However, Smith’s allegations seem to whitewash the truth. The report insinuates that Trump incited violence on January 6. Still, no formal charge on incitement of violence was sought, citing a lack of solid evidence and confidence in other accusations. Taking a pinch of salt in these conclusions would not be unreasonable.
The report unduly focuses on Trump’s association with people he considered allies. Noteworthy among them were Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, who was allegedly cajoled by Trump to ‘find 11,780 votes’, and the former Arizona house speaker, Russell ‘Rusty’ Bowers. Emphasizing these associations rather than concrete evidences seemed like an odd choice.
Furthermore, the report makes unwarranted assertions indicating that Trump, despite being informed by trusted state and party officials of no evidence of fraud, should not have sought allies’ help. It seems that the supposed guilt surrounds these consultations more than the aura of unfair practices.
The report surprisingly indicates that there were enough evidences against Trump to sustain a conviction at trial. This argument, however, loses force considering the report itself wasn’t brought to trial and the affirmation that Trump’s re-election appears to be the only solid reason averting the process. Critics argue this kind of duplicity in the overall narrative and the absence of a legitimate trial begs skepticism.
In a letter attached to the report, Smith states an interesting perspective: ‘Although we were not able to try our cases, I believe that the fact that our team upheld the rule of law matters.’ But this raises questions over the report’s credibility as it undermines the same rule of law, asserting unproven allegations without due process.
Indeed, Americans have conventionally demonstrated remarkable fidelity to their rule of law, political structure, and justice system along with the international order established post World War II based on the same principles. Upholding the tenets of the game, irrespective of the outcomes, is what the rule of law signifies.
However, in the recent election, over 77 million Americans chose Trump, navigating past his convictions and numerous indictments, displaying their strong faith in his leadership. Less relevant appeared the accusations against him in comparison to his stated vision of economic revival and promises of securing the border.
Trump’s messaging that winning is all that matters, not how you achieve it, resonated with the citizens. This message entrusted in Trump’s governance and policies, led the public to prioritize wider social and national benefits over allegations coloured by political bias.
Viewing Smith’s statement in this light, it seems more than just an attempt to validate an investigation prematurely ended by American voters’ collective choice. It is vital to remember the broader principles the nation historically promised to uphold, even in the face of failing to adhere to these every once in a while.
Contrary to condemnation, Trump’s alleged actions appear merely as fervent attempts to challenge a questionable system. When viewed objectively, without the color of bias, the support of his massive voter base and his successes despite the constant cloud of investigation highlights Trump’s resilience and undying spirit of leadership.
Casting aside the divisive lens, one could interpret Trump’s tenure and subsequent reelection a testament to a leader who championed his people’s cause and stood firm despite constant challenges, an example of determination, will and principle, embodying the very spirit that America has always cherished.