Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us Newsletter

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us Newsletter
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

CONVICTION!? DOJ Just Dropped Jack Smith’s “Report”, President Trump Responds

The report detailing the intentions of Jack Smith and Biden’s Department of Justice just dropped — even though ALL CHARGES against President Trump were dropped weeks ago!

Nevertheless, the DOJ was intent on making sure this report saw the light of day.

According to Jack Smith’s “report”, President Trump would have been found guilty of election interference.

But there is one big problem with that assertion: a court case is not decided until it has been fully tried; much less if the charges are dropped to begin with.

But in their usual rabid form, the DOJ simply could not imagine moving forward with any form of propriety, accepting the fact that their case against President Trump was never fully tried and in fact dropped.

No — they needed some way to move forward with the false narrative spread far and wide that President Trump was guilty and the only thing that saved him was the 2024 election.

Notwithstanding the fact that the case was never fully tried, and all charges dropped, which in point of fact renders the DOJ’s INTENTION of finding him guilty… even more worthless than the 100+ pages it was printed on.

ADVERTISEMENT

But, as I said, propriety wasn’t the point here.

This was more about getting in a parting shot, and a last ditch effort to cast President Trump in the image of a criminal.

Jack Smith specifically claimed that the ultimate outcome would have been a conviction, according to a report in Politico:

Trump is only off the hook, the special counsel wrote, because he won back the White House in 2024, forcing the Justice Department to shut down the historic prosecution.

“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President 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,” Smith wrote in a 137-page volume of the report that the Justice Department sent to Congress and publicly released on Tuesday morning, shortly after midnight.

“The admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction,” added Smith, who resigned from his position last week.

The Justice Department is withholding for now, under court order, the second part of Smith’s two-volume report. That portion details his investigation into the presence of a slew of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and allegations that he obstructed the investigation into how they got there.

How completely hypocritical of Jack Smith to pretend to rely on the unquestionable primacy of the Constitution on one hand, while simultaneously holding his own assertion in even higher esteem and brashly call an untried man guilty.

That is the epitome of unconstitutionality itself.

And thankfully, President Trump responded almost immediately according to a report in the BBC:

ADVERTISEMENT

President-elect Donald Trump would have been convicted of illegally trying to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election – which he lost – if he had not successfully been re-elected in 2024, according to a Department of Justice report released to Congress.

“The admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the report by Special Counsel Jack Smith said.

Smith is “deranged” and his findings are “fake”, Trump said after the report was released.

Trump, who was president at the time of the alleged crimes, subsequently spent four years out of office – but was successfully re-elected to the White House in November. He will return to the presidency next week.

After his success in the 2024 vote, the various legal issues that he had been battling have largely evaporated.

But to get the full feel for President Trump’s 1:00 AM response, you really need to see it:

Kyle Becker was one of the first to break the news on X, posting almost immediately when the documents were released.

ADVERTISEMENT

Here’s his initial post, which could easily be titled “Just The Facts”:

BREAKING: DOJ Releases Jack Smith’s Report on Trump’s Efforts to Challenge the 2020 Election

Attorney General Merrick Garland has released Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on former President Donald Trump’s efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

The 130-page document, made public early Tuesday after a court hold expired at midnight, provides the Special Counsel’s narrative about the politically charged case.

The report outlines Trump’s efforts to contest the election results, including pressure on state officials, a plan involving alternate slates of electors, and attempts to influence then-Vice President Mike Pence.

It also examines events leading to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Smith’s investigation initially resulted in charges against Trump, but the case was dropped after the Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity and following Trump’s return to office after the 2024 election.

The report concludes that Trump’s efforts to contest the results involved actions that disrupted the certification process but does not allege additional crimes beyond those previously charged.

The release follows unsuccessful attempts by Trump and his legal team to block publication.

This is the first volume of Smith’s report.

The second volume of the report, related to a separate investigation, remains under seal due to an order by Judge Aileen Cannon.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Becker followed up his initial post with a great explanatory companion post.

And he absolutely nailed the bottom line:

This is basically a long opinion-editorial masquerading as a “legal brief” that accuses Donald Trump of saying things during a political campaign that Jack Smith says aren’t “true” while pursuing legal avenues to challenge the election.

If it’s illegal for Donald Trump to do that, then Democrats should be in prison for “interfering” in every presidential election they lost since 1988.

Sham case. That’s why it got dismissed.

(Emphasis added.)

In dropping this report, pretending it is some sort of legal judgment, Merrick Garland and Jack Smith are vainly attempting to regain some degree of legitimacy for their years-long witch hunt.

Smith plainly stated that the Department of Justice and his office stands fully behind the case against President Trump, according to Fox News:

In the lengthy report, Smith said his office fully stands behind the decision to bring criminal charges against Trump because he “resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power” after he lost the 2020 election.

Smith said in his conclusion that the parties were determining whether any material in the “superseding indictment was subject to presidential immunity” when it became clear that Trump had won the 2024 election. The department then determined the case must be dismissed before he takes office because of how it interprets the Constitution.

“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President 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 Office stands fully behind,” the report stated.

Again, Kyle Becker has the antidote to Jack Smith’s web of deceit.

Not only did Jack Smith like “with ease” according to Becker, but his entire case rested on the flawed premise that legally challenging an election is a criminal offense.

Here’s the full text of Becker’s post, where he destroys Jack Smith’s flawed logic:

JUST IN: Former Special Counsel Jack Smith lies endlessly and with ease in his new legal “briefing” on Trump’s challenging of the 2020 election results.

This specifically addresses Smith’s claims on “the law.”

1. Legally challenging an election is not a criminal offense. It is not “obstruction” of a government function. Donald Trump is a party to the case. In addition, he was President of the United States.

2. Trump wanted his supporters to “peacefully” support the election objections already taking place in the Electoral College when the attack on the capitol was instigated by those not at his speech.

3. Donald Trump was a candidate in his election. Challenging election results is not “conspiring” to deprive citizens of the right to vote.

Again, Trump was a party to the case asserting his right to challenge elections. This is not depriving citizens of the right to vote. This is patently absurd.

Donald Trump was participating in the democratic process; he was not a “threat to democracy.”

Indeed, if a presidential candidate cannot legally challenge or discuss the results of elections without going to prison, there can be no “democracy.”

Once again, we see the fervent illegality of the lawfare waged almost endlessly against President Trump.

Well, almost endlessly.

Someone once said that elections have consequences.  Thankfully, that can work in either direction — for bad, or for good.

The end of Jack Smith’s lawfare against President Trump is definitely a GOOD CONSEQUENCE if ever there was one.  And good riddance, too.

You can read the entirety of the report here:  Special Counsel Report


 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.