US elections 2020
Subterms
More stories
- in Elections
Jack Smith’s final letter on Trump case offers little consolation and less justice
A forlorn note from Jack Smith to Merrick Garland, the attorney general, provides a poignant epitaph into the unfulfilled and ultimately fruitless two-year criminal investigation into Donald Trump.“While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters,” the special prosecutor wrote in a letter attached to the 137-page report, which concludes that the president-elect would have been criminally convicted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election if he had not been re-elected four years later.“I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters.”With Trump less than a week away from returning to the White House after having tried to stay there by resorting to foul play, there is a certain pathos to Smith’s insistence that his endeavours were not in vain.There is also an irony that his incongruously hopeful message should be addressed to Garland.The attorney general – despite being another of Trump’s frequent targets – has faced criticism for his handling of the investigation into the former and future president, including from Joe Biden, who Trump has insistently and falsely accused of using his constitutional power to orchestrate the special prosecutor’s investigation into him.Far from that being the case, Biden is reported to have voiced regret for appointing Garland – a former judge who maintains a scrupulously above-the-political-fray posture – believing that he waited too long to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Trump.That delay ultimately led to the investigation running out of time, as Trump and his legal team used repeated delaying tactics to run down the clock in the calculation that Smith’s work would be overtaken by the election – as ultimately proved the case.“Merrick Garland is the greatest failure of an Attorney General in the modern era,” Dean Obeidallah, a liberal podcaster and broadcaster, posted on X following the report’s publication, repeating an earlier comment he made on MSNBC.“Smith had tons of evidence to convict Trump but Garland prevented for more than a year an investigation into Trump.”The messy ending is cruelly unsatisfactory for those who died as a result of the violent frenzy that unfolded as a pro-Trump mob attacked the US Capitol on January 6, with the goal of keeping their man in the White House.Meanwhile those who sat on the House of Representatives’ select committee that investigated the attack are left to hope that Biden will issue a pardon in his last few days in office to protect them from the wrath of Trump, who has said at least one of its members, Liz Cheney, the House’s former number three Republican, should face a military tribunal for her role.The committee’s chair, Bennie Thompson, a Democratic representative from Mississippi, told Punchbowl that he would accept such a pardon if offered.“I believe Donald Trump when he says he’s going to inflict retribution on this,” Thompson said. “I believe when he says my name and Liz Cheney and the others. I believe him.”Concern over Trump’s possible revenge may be also be felt by Smith.The release of the special prosecutor’s report at 1am drew a characteristic nocturnal diatribe from Trump, in the form of two social media posts that showed his sense of grievance burning brightly despite its contents having been rendered legally meaningless by his presidential election victory.“Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss,’ Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another ‘Report’ based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were,” the incoming president vented on his Truth Social platform barely 40 minutes after Smith’s report had been published.Showing who was going to be boss from next Tuesday, he added: “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!!!”A few minutes later, he posted: “To show you how desperate Deranged Jack Smith is, he released his Fake findings at 1:00 A.M. in the morning. Did he say that the Unselect Committee illegally destroyed and deleted all of the evidence.”It would be understandable if Smith contrived to view the incoming president’s late-night rage as affirmation that was, despite everything, meaningful.Yet that is scant consolation given that its consequences are unlikely to ever visit Trump’s door – and may, in fact, rebound to haunt Smith and his team if the president-elect makes good on his threats to exact retribution. More
- in Elections
Five key takeaways from Jack Smith’s report on alleged Trump election crimes
A special counsel report detailing Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy was released by the justice department early on Tuesday and concluded that the president-elect would have been convicted of crimes over his failed attempt to cling to power in 2020.However, Trump’s victory in November’s US presidential election scuppered the investigation.Jack Smith was appointed as special counsel and his report was published after a fierce legal battle by Trump’s team to keep it under wraps. In it, Smith asserts that he believes the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Trump in a trial if his success in the 2024 election had not made it impossible to continue the prosecution into his attempts to stay in the Oval Office despite his electoral loss to Joe Biden in 2020.Here are some key findings:1. Trump did not cooperate fullySmith laid out the challenges he faced during the investigation, including Trump’s assertion of executive privilege to try to block witnesses from providing evidence, which forced prosecutors into sealed court battles before the case was charged.Another “significant challenge” was Trump’s “ability and willingness to use his influence and following on social media to target witnesses, courts, prosecutors”, which led prosecutors to seek a gag order to protect potential witnesses from harassment, Smith wrote.2. Smith calls allegations of political interference ‘laughable’Smith hit back at claims by the president-elect that he pursued the charges for political reasons.“While I relied greatly on the counsel, judgment, and advice of our team, I want it to be clear that the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully,” wrote Smith, who resigned from the justice department on 10 January.He added that “nobody within the Department of Justice ever sought to interfere with, or improperly influence, my prosecutorial decision making.“And to all who know me well, the claim from Mr Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable,” Smith wrote.3. Trump knew his allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election were falseSmith wrote that Trump knew his allegations of fraud in the 2020 election were false – but he continued to make them anyway.“Mr Trump’s false claims included dozens of specific claims regarding certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for Mr Trump to votes against him. These claims were demonstrably and, in many cases, obviously false,” Smith said.4. Smith believed Trump should be charged despite supreme court immunity rulingDespite a supreme court ruling on presidential immunity, Smith wrote that he believed the charges he filed against Trump still held water.He notes that his team was able to secure a superseding indictment from a grand jury after the top court handed down its ruling, which gave Trump immunity for official acts taken as president.“The Supreme Court’s decision required the office to reanalyze the evidence it had collected. The original indictment alleged that Mr Trump, as the incumbent president, used all available tools and powers, both private and official, to overturn the legitimate results of the election despite notice, including from official advisors, that his fraud claims were false and he had lost the election.“Given the supreme court’s ruling, the office reevaluated the evidence and assessed whether Mr Trump’s non-immune conduct – either his private conduct as a candidate or official conduct for which the office could rebut the presumption of immunity – violated federal 33 laws. The office concluded that it did. After doing so, the office sought, and a new grand jury issued, a superseding indictment with identical charges but based only on conduct that was not immune because it was either unofficial or any presumptive immunity could be rebutted.”5. Trump is furiousIn a typically incoherent social media post put online in the early hours of Tuesday, Trump’s rage at the release of the report was clear.Trump, who returns to the presidency on 20 January, wrote: “Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss,’ Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another ‘Report’ based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were. 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!!!” More
- in Elections
Trump would have been convicted over 2020 election, says special counsel
Donald Trump would have been convicted of crimes over his failed attempt to cling to power in 2020 but for his victory in last year’s US presidential election, according to the special counsel who investigated him.Jack Smith’s report detailing his team’s findings about Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy was released by the justice department early on Tuesday.After the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, Smith was appointed as special counsel to investigate Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His investigation culminated in a detailed report submitted to the attorney general, Merrick Garland.In it, Smith asserts that he believes the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Trump in a trial if his success in the 2024 election had not made it impossible for the prosecution to continue.“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,” Smith writes.“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 was impeached for his role in spurring the January 6 riot, accused by a congressional panel of taking part in a “multi-part conspiracy” and ultimately indicted by justice department on four counts, including “conspiracy to defraud” the US.Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.After the release, Trump, in a post on his Truth Social site, called Smith a “lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the election”.He has depicted the cases as politically motivated attempts to damage his campaign and political movement. He also calculated correctly that he could outrun the law by staging a spectacular political comeback and regaining the White House.Volume one of Smith’s report meticulously outlines Trump’s alleged actions, including his efforts to pressure state officials, assemble alternate electors and encourage supporters to protest against the election results.Smith writes: “Significantly, he made election claims only to state legislators and executives who shared his political affiliation and were his political supporters, and only in states that he had lost.”The report underscores Trump’s persistent spreading of “demonstrably and, in many cases, obviously false” claims about the 2020 election. These served as the basis for his pressure campaign and contributed to the January 6 attack.Much of the evidence cited in the report has been made public previously. But it includes some new details, such as that prosecutors considered charging Trump with inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol under a US law known as the Insurrection Act.Prosecutors ultimately concluded that such a charge posed legal risks and there was insufficient evidence that Trump intended for the “full scope” of violence during the riot, a failed attempt by a mob of his supporters to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election.The indictment charged Trump with conspiring to obstruct the election certification, defraud the US of accurate election results and deprive US voters of their voting rights.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSmith’s office determined that charges may have been justified against some co-conspirators accused of helping Trump carry out the plan, but the report said prosecutors reached no final conclusions. Several of Trump’s former lawyers had previously been identified as co-conspirators referenced in the indictment.Trump and his legal team have characterised the report as a “political hit job” aimed at disrupting the presidential transition and waged a protracted legal battle to prevent its release.Smith, who left the justice department last week, directly addresses accusations from Trump and his allies that the investigation was politically motivated. He asserts that his team operated solely on the basis of facts and law.Smith writes: “My office had one north star: to follow the facts and law wherever they led. Nothing more and nothing less. To all who know me well, the claim from Mr Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”Smith acknowledges the justice department’s policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president, a factor that ultimately led to the dropping of charges against Trump after his 2024 victory. The report also references a supreme court ruling expanding presidential immunity, which complicated the case.But Smith wrote in a letter to Garland attached to the report: “While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters.”A second section of the report details Smith’s case accusing Trump of illegally retaining sensitive national security documents after leaving the White House in 2021. The justice department has committed not to make that portion public while legal proceedings continue against two Trump associates charged in the case.Trump, who will be inaugurated as the 47th president on Monday, was last week sentenced to an unconditional discharge for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment during the 2016 election.Reuters contributed to this report More
- in Elections
Rudy Giuliani found to be in contempt of court again for 2020 election lies
Rudy Giuliani was found in contempt of court on Friday for continuing to spread lies about two former Georgia election workers after a jury awarded the women a $148m defamation judgment.Federal judge Beryl Howell in Washington DC is the second federal judge in a matter of days to find the former New York City mayor in contempt of court.Howell found that Giuliani violated court orders barring him from defaming Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman. She ordered him to review trial testimony and other materials from the case and warned him that future violations could result in possible jail time.A statement from Giuliani’s attorney, Ted Goodman, said: “The public should know that mayor Rudy Giuliani never had the opportunity to defend himself on the facts in the defamation case.“This is an important point that many Americans still don’t realize due to biased coverage and a campaign to silence Mayor Giuliani. This contempt ruling is designed to prevent Mayor Giuliani from exercising his constitutional rights.”Moss and Freeman sued Rudy Giuliani for defamation for falsely accusing them of committing election fraud in connection with the 2020 election. They said his lies upended their lives with racist threats and harassment.A jury sided with the mother and daughter, who are Black, in December 2023 and awarded them $75m in punitive damages plus roughly $73m in other damages.Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked Howell to impose civil contempt sanctions against Giuliani after they said he continued to falsely accuse Moss and Freeman of committing election fraud in connection with the 2020 election.Shortly before Friday’s hearing began, Giuliani slammed the judge in a social media post, calling her “bloodthirsty” and biased against him and the proceeding a “hypocritical waste of time”.On Monday in New York, Judge Lewis Liman found Giuliani in contempt of court for related claims that he failed to turn over evidence to help the judge decide whether he can keep a Palm Beach, Florida, condominium.Giuliani, who testified in Liman’s Manhattan courtroom on 3 January, said he didn’t turn over everything because he believed the requests were overly broad, inappropriate or even a “trap” set by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.Giuliani, 80, said in a court filing that before Friday’s hearing that he was having travel-related concerns about his health and safety. He said he gets death threats and has been told to be careful about traveling.“I had hoped the Court would understand and accommodate my needs. However, it appears I was mistaken,” he said in the filing.On the witness stand during Giuliani’s trial, Moss and Freeman described fearing for their lives after becoming the target of a false conspiracy theory that Giuliani and other Republicans spread as they tried to keep Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump, for whom Giuliani has previously worked as an attorney, won November’s White House election against the vice-president, Kamala Harris, and will be sworn in for a second Oval Office term on 20 January.Moss told jurors she tried to change her appearance, seldom leaves her home and suffers from panic attacks.“Money will never solve all my problems,” Freeman told reporters after the jury’s verdict. “I can never move back into the house that I call home. I will always have to be careful about where I go and who I choose to share my name with. I miss my home. I miss my neighbors and I miss my name.” More
- in Elections
DoJ to release part of report on Trump’s attempt to overturn 2020 election
Attorney general Merrick Garland intends to release the first part of the highly-anticipated special counsel report into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election but will withhold the second part about Trump’s retention of classified documents, the justice department said on Wednesday.The full report by the special counsel, Jack Smith, will also be made available to the top Democrat and Republican on the House and Senate judiciary committees as long as they agree to keep the contents of the second part confidential, the department also said.Exactly when the first part of the report will become public remains unclear, since it is still temporarily blocked by a court order issued by the federal judge who presided in the documents case. The justice department’s intentions were disclosed in a court filing challenging the order.The move to make the report public still faces several hurdles. Even if the 11th circuit quickly rules in favor of release, Trump is expected to make a final challenge to the supreme court in an effort to buy time and shred the report before his 20 January inauguration.Ever since Trump won the election, ending the possibility of the cases going to trial, Smith has been preparing a final report into the Trump cases and their charging decisions, as is required under the special counsel regulations at the end of a case.The report is confidential and first gets sent to the attorney general, who has the power to decide how much becomes public. Garland had previously pledged to publish at least some of it, and the justice department’s court filings suggest the entire first volume will be released.Trump’s lawyers, including Todd Blanche who has been tapped by Trump to be his incoming deputy attorney general, reviewed a draft version of the report over the weekend in Washington and took issue with its findings but also with its very existence.The lawyers objected to Smith even being allowed to complete a report and asked that Garland remove him from his post. If Garland disagrees and Smith produces a report, the decision on whether it should become public should be left to the incoming attorney general, the lawyers suggested.The lawyers leaned heavily into their contention that Smith was improperly appointed because he was not confirmed by the Senate before he took the job – the basis on which the US district judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump.The Trump legal team also argued that the release of the report would unfairly prejudice Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump’s former co-defendants in the documents case, against whom the justice department is separately trying to resurrect the case on appeal.On Tuesday, Cannon granted a temporary injunction that prohibited the justice department from releasing the report outside of the agency until three days after the 11th circuit decided the matter.To get around the documents case situation, the special counsel’s team told the 11th circuit in its reply brief on Wednesday that it would withhold the second part of the report that discusses Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and his efforts to obstruct justice.“This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of the significant matter within the Department while safeguarding defendants’ interests,” the filing said. More
- in Elections
US electors to certify Trump’s win in process targeted by fake electors in 2020
Electors will meet in all 50 states on Tuesday to ratify the second election of Donald Trump to the presidency, a process typically no more than a ceremonial step to the White House for the winner of an election.Usually, it lacks drama. But four years ago on 20 December 2020, Republican activists met in seven states won by Joe Biden – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – to sign false certificates of ascertainment proclaiming victory for Donald Trump and Mike Pence, to be sent to the National Archives and to Congress.Prosecutors have described the intent behind this act of “fake electors” as the provision of a rationale for the vice-president to either declare Trump president or to throw the election to Congress to decide on 6 January 2021. On that day, rioters breached the US Capitol intent on subverting the results of the election.The constitution states that on the first Tuesday following the second Wednesday of December after a presidential election, each state’s presidential electors gather in each state’s capitol to cast their vote in the electoral college for president and vice-president. The electoral college is an artifact of the politics of slavery; created at the insistence of southern states because it initially enhanced the voting power of states with larger enslaved populations due to the apportionment value of the three-fifths compromise.The re-election of Trump in November by a decisive margin, coupled with the relative acceptance of the results by his political opponents, suggests no second wave of shenanigans on Tuesday.Nonetheless, Congress tightened up language about how the process works after the January 6 insurrection, the latest of periodic adjustments to the 248-year-old tradition of the electoral college. The Electoral Count Reform Act clarified that the legislatures of states that use an election to choose a president cannot simply appoint electors after the fact if there is some kind of election “failure”.The reforms require the executive of each state to certify an election at least six days before the electoral count, and that this certification is conclusive unless a state or federal court concludes otherwise. It limited the kind of objections members of Congress could make to the votes of electors. It also ensured that a mob with bad intentions could not change the outcome, by explicitly designating the vice-president’s role in counting votes as a ministerial, ceremonial act.The one thing the 2022 reforms didn’t do is require states to hold a presidential election.Stated in article II, section 1, clause 2 of the constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress … ”The US supreme court ruled in Bush v Gore that states do not actually have to hold an election at all, but if they do it has to conform with 14th amendment rules for equal protection.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe “manner” state legislatures have chosen in the past has included allowing voters to choose them by electoral district, or with legislators choosing themselves – as Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey and South Carolina did in the first presidential election.Electors appointed to the college are obligated to vote for the winning candidate. Some vote for someone else anyway. It’s rare – fewer than 100 out of more than 14,000 people over the life of the country. The modern record is seven, set in 2016.So-called faithless electors have never overturned an election, but dozens of electors have cast ballots for a candidate not of their party over the years. Thirty-three states and Washington DC have state laws prohibiting electors from casting ballots for someone other than the winner of the election. In 2016, four electors for Hillary Clinton in the state of Washington cast their votes for Colin Powell or Faith Spotted Eagle instead and were fined $1,000 for doing so.Five states make the act of a faithless elector a crime; California law makes it a felony punishable by up to three years in prison to break ranks. More
- in Elections
Six Republicans in Nevada again charged for 2020 fake elector scheme
Six Republicans in Nevada have again been charged with submitting a bogus certificate to Congress that falsely declared Donald Trump the winner of the presidential battleground’s 2020 election.Aaron Ford, the state’s attorney general, announced on Thursday that the fake electors case had been revived in Carson City, the capital, where he filed a new complaint this week charging the defendants with “uttering a forged instrument”, a felony.A Nevada judge dismissed the original indictment earlier this year, ruling that Clark county, the state’s most populous county and home to Las Vegas, was the wrong venue for the case.Ford, a Democrat, said the new case was filed as a precaution to avoid the statute of limitations expiring while the Nevada supreme court weighs his appeal of the judge’s ruling.“While we disagree with the finding of improper venue and will continue to seek to overturn it, we are preserving our legal rights in order to ensure that these fake electors do not escape justice,” Ford said.“The actions the fake electors undertook in 2020 violated Nevada criminal law and were direct attempts to both sow doubt in our democracy and undermine the results of a free and fair election. Justice requires that these actions not go unpunished.”Officials have said it was part of a larger scheme across seven battleground states to keep the former president in the White House after losing to Joe Biden. Criminal cases have also been brought in Michigan, Georgia and Arizona.Trump lost in 2020 to the president by more than 30,000 votes in Nevada. An investigation by then Nevada secretary of state Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, found no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state.The defendants are state the Republican party chair Michael McDonald; the Clark county Republican party chair Jesse Law; the national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; the national and Douglas county committee member Shawn Meehan; the Storey county clerk Jim Hindle; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area.In an emailed statement to the Associated Press, McDonald’s attorney, Richard Wright, called the new complaint a political move by a Democratic state attorney general who also announced on Thursday that he plans to run for governor in 2026.“We will withhold further comment and address the issues in court,” said Wright, who has spoken often in court on behalf of all six defendants.Attorneys for the others did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.Their lawyers previously argued that Ford improperly brought the case before a grand jury in Democratic-leaning Las Vegas instead of in a northern Nevada city, where the alleged crimes occurred. More
