On January 6th, 2021, Donald Trump incited and encouraged a violent attack, often referred to as an insurrection, at the United States Capitol in an effort to overturn the election he lost to Joe Biden. After years of Trump insisting he was not at fault, Vol. 1 of the damning report from Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith has been released.

In this report, Smith and the DOJ confirm in no uncertain terms that Trump not only incited this riot, but inflamed division among the American people, attempted to manipulate officials, and launched attacks on multiple parties following his loss. 

Per Smith’s report: “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.”

Since his 2016 campaign, and with increasing intensity, Donald Trump has engaged in misinformation campaigns and vicious lies that have worsened tensions across the nation, with much of his vitriol directed at minority communities. One need only look at the most recent example of Trump starting, and spreading, numerous lies about the devastating fires in California. Trump is untrustworthy on every level, and brings instability and uncertainty to a nation desperate for unity.

Per Smith’s report: “In his Ellipse speech, Mr. Trump explicitly directed his supporters to march on the Capitol.”

Smith’s report is only further undeniable proof of what we already knew: Donald Trump is a danger to the wellbeing of not only the American people, but also to our national security. Trump has fueled the fire of all the worst parts of our country at every opportunity, causing division and hatred, since his presidential campaign in 2016.

Trump has worked tirelessly with other billionaires and ultra wealthy figures to form an oligarchy; these people do not care about the wellbeing of Americans, they are driven by greed and a desire for power  

Trump not only engaged in encouraging violence, and gave comfort (providing support, and promising to pardon those arrested for the attack) to those who physically assaulted the capitol, but incited this event. The incitement, and the act that followed, can only reasonably be considered domestic terrorism.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Donald Trump is ineligible to hold the office of President. Beyond his own divisive and hateful acts, and participation and complicity in domestic terrorism, he has degraded the United States on the world stage. Allowing this disgrace to lead any nation, but especially one that holds such immense sway in both military and economic power, would be egregiously irresponsible.

The United States Congress must uphold our constitution and invoke the 14th amendment before further damage is done.

Excerpts from Smith's report:

Pg. 8: One of Mr. Trump's efforts to change the results of the election involved targeting the electoral process at the state level through politically aligned state officials. Mr. Trump contacted state legislators and executives, pressured them with false claims of election fraud in their states, and urged them to take action to ignore the vote counts and change the results. 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.

Pg. 20: In repeated conversations, day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as President of the Senate to change the election outcome, often by citing false claims of election fraud as justification; he even falsely told Mr. Pence that the "Justice Department [was] finding major infractions." When Mr. Pence repeatedly refused to act as Mr. Trump wanted, Mr. Trump told him that "hundreds of thousands" of people would "hate his guts" and think he was "stupid," and that Mr. Pence was "too honest." Surrounding these communications, Mr. Trump frequently took to Twitter to exhort supporters to travel to

Washington for January 6, such as when he tweeted on January 1, "The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!"

Pg. 24-25: Mr. Trump told the crowd-a crowd of his supporters that he had remarked to advisors the night before was "angry" -that the election had been stolen and the country would no longer exist if this purported crime were not stopped; and that the discovery of "fraud" licensed them to "go by very different rules." Although Mr. Trump at one point also told his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard," he used the word "fight" more than ten times in the speech before concluding by directing his supporters to march to the Capitol to give allied Members of Congress "the kind of pride and boldness they need to take back our country." He also told the angry crowd that "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." Throughout the speech, Mr. Trump gave his supporters false hope that through such action, they could cause Mr. Pence to overturn the election results, even improvising new lines directed at Mr. Pence as the speech went on.

At Mr. Trump's urging, thousands of his supporters marched from the Ellipse to the Capitol building. There, Mr. Pence began the certification at around 1:00 p.m. Outside the building, the crowd swelled and broke through barriers cordoning off the grounds. The crowd that attacked the Capitol was filled with Mr. Trump's supporters, as made clear by their Trump shirts, signs, and flags. As described in detail below, the crowd violently attacked the law enforcement officers attempting to secure the building.

Pg. 29: When the angry crowd advanced on the Capitol building and breached it at around 2:13 p.m., forcing the Senate to recess, several of Mr. Trump's advisors rushed to the dining room and told him that a riot had started at the Capitol and that rioters were in the building. Over the course of the afternoon, they forcefully urged Mr. Trump to issue calming messages to his supporters. Mr. Trump resisted, repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen.

Pg. 30: Then, at 2:24 p.m., sitting alone, Mr. Trump issued a Tweet attacking Mr. Pence and fueling the riot: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" One minute later, the United States Secret Service was forced to evacuate Mr. Pence to a secure location at the Capitol. 126 When an advisor at the White House learned this, he rushed to the dining room and informed Mr. Trump, who replied

"So what?"

The rioters at the Capitol had been motivated and directed by Mr. Trump, and he continued to resist advisors' requests to direct them to leave. Throughout the afternoon, crowds at the Capitol hunted for Mr. Pence and other lawmakers, with some chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!"

Pg. 31: At 4: 17 p.m., he tweeted a video message in which he for the first time asked his supporters to leave the Capitol-while at the same time falsely claiming that "[w]e had an election that was stolen from us ... a landslide election," and embracing the people who had attacked the Capitol, telling them "we love you, you're very special." 130 And at 6:01 p.m., he tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

Pg. 34: The Office concluded that Mr. Trump's conduct satisfied each of these established elements of a defraud-clause offense.

Pg. 35: Mr. Trump also sought to obstruct the certification; his sole objective was to ensure that no one other than himself was certified as the President. Nor is there any doubt that Mr. Trump conspired with others to achieve his goal, and that at least one overt act was committed.

With three of the four elements of a Section 371 violation established, the Office anticipated that a central dispute at trial would be whether Mr. Trump pursued his obstructive purpose by "deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." Hammerschmidt,

265 U.S. at 188. The Office concluded that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

Crucially, not only was Mr. Trump's voter-fraud narrative objectively false-he knew that it was false. Mr. Trump's false claims were repeatedly debunked, often directly to him by the very people best positioned to ascertain their truth.

Pg. 39-40: Because the evidence showed that Mr. Trump knew his claims were false, it amply satisfied the mens rea standard for a Section 371 charge, which would be satisfied by evidence that Mr. Trump either knew his fraud claims were false or that he acted with deliberate disregard for their truth or falsity. The concept of deliberate disregard-sometimes referred to as reckless disregard, or reckless or deliberate indifference-has deep roots in the law of fraud.

…

Although Mr. Trump's conduct fell comfortably within the established elements of a defraud-clause offense, the Office noted that the Supreme Court has in several recent decisions limited the reach of other federal fraud and obstruction statutes.

Pg. 46: Before seeking the original indictment-which, like the superseding indictment, alleged that one component of Mr. Trump's and his co-conspirators' obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512( c )(2).

Pg. 47: The Office was also prepared to prove that Mr. Trump willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol to cause the Vice President and legislators to reject the legitimate certificates and instead rely on the fraudulent electoral certificates.

…

Much of the evidence that supports the Section 3 71 conspiracy to defraud likewise proves that Mr. Trump and co-conspirators violated Section 1512(k) and Section 1512(c)(2). To demonstrate a violation of Section 1512( c )(2) following Fischer, the government must prove (1) the defendant obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding, or attempted to do so, (2) in the course of doing so, the defendant committed or attempted to commit an act that impaired the integrity or rendered unavailable records, documents, objects, or other things for use in the official proceeding, (3) the defendant intended to impair the integrity of or render unavailable such records, documents, objects, or other things for use in the official proceeding, and (4) the defendant acted corruptly.

Pg. 49: Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." A violation of Section 241 requires proof of three elements: (1) Mr. Trump entered into a conspiracy, (2) to willfully injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States, (3) in the exercise or enjoyment of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. 

Mr. Trump's conduct meets each element.

Pg. 52: Mr. Trump and co-conspirators sought to deprive-that is, injure or oppress-citizens of their constitutional right to have their presidential election votes counted. The words "injure or oppress" in Section 241 are not used in any technical sense, but cover a variety of conduct intended to prevent, harm, inhibit, hinder, frustrate, obstruct, or interfere with the free exercise and enjoyment of a right. See United States v. Handy, No. 22-cr-96, 2023 WL 6199084, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 22, 2023); United States v. Mackey, 652 F. Supp. 3d 309, 336-337 (E.D.N.Y. 2023). Although they were not in a backroom altering the vote tallies in a local election, or stuffing falsified ballots into the ballot boxes, as alleged in prior cases charged under this statute, Mr. Trump and co-conspirators nonetheless sought the same result: to effectively cast aside legitimate votes in a manner that would have deprived citizens of their right to vote and have their votes counted. As Co-Conspirator 1 admitted, their primary objective was to "just flat out change the vote, deduct that number of votes from the - declare those votes, 300,000 votes in Philadelphia, illegal, unlawful. Reduce the number by 300,000."

Mr. Trump attempted to carry out this objective in multiple ways. He urged state officials to disregard the legitimate majority of votes for Mr. Biden and pressured and threatened Georgia's Secretary of State to "find" more than 11,000 votes to dilute Mr. Biden's vote count in the state. And he urged Mr. Pence to discard the legitimate electoral certificates that reflected millions of citizens' votes in the targeted states. The evidence collected showed that Mr. Trump targeted this voting right with precision: he centered his false claims of election fraud on select states, or cities and counties within those states, with large numbers of voters who had not chosen to reelect him.

Pg. 54: A defendant may not use deceit to obstruct a government function even if he believes the function itself to be unconstitutional because "a claim of unconstitutionality will not be heard to excuse a voluntary, deliberate and calculated course of fraud and deceit."

Pg. 59: Finally, the Office anticipated that Mr. Trump would claim that his conduct was protected by the First Amendment. As the district court recognized, "the First Amendment 'embodies our profound national commitment to the free exchange of ideas," and it bars the government from '"restrict[ing] expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.'" ECF No. 171 at 31 (quoting Ashcroft v. Am. Civ. Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002), and United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460,468 (2010)). At the same time, "it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime."

Pg. 68: The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, handed down after the initial decision to prosecute and analyzed below in Section V.D.2 did not alter the Office's view that the Principles of Federal Prosecution compelled prosecuting Mr. Trump; although that decision prevented use of certain evidence uncovered regarding Mr. Trump's misuse of presidential power, he also engaged in non-immune criminal conduct that is set forth in the superseding indictment. Accordingly, this section discusses only evidence that was not immunized-either because it involved Mr. Trump's private conduct or because the Office would have rebutted any presumption of immunity.”

Pg. 76: Inevitably, threats and intimidation to these officials followed. For instance, after Mr. Trump targeted a Philadelphia City Commissioner in a Tweet criticizing the Commissioner for stating that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud in Philadelphia, threats against the Commissioner grew more targeted, more detailed, and more graphic. These threats extended to include highly personal information like the names and ages of the Commissioner's family members, as well as photos or the address of his home. Fulton County, Georgia, election officials similarly reported receiving threats-including death threats-following Mr. Trump's false public accusations against Fulton County election workers.

…

Mr. Trump also targeted private citizens who served as election workers. He took particular aim at a mother and daughter who worked at Atlanta's State Farm Arena counting ballots on election day; he and his co-conspirators spread pernicious false claims that these election workers had committed misconduct.

Pg. 78: In addition to prompting these threats against the targets of Mr. Trump's criticisms, Mr. Trump's words inspired his supporters to commit acts of physical violence. On January 6, Mr. Trump used his Ellipse speech to direct his supporters to "go[] to the Capitol" and "fight like hell." He explicitly licensed them, not long after Co-Conspirator 1 had exhorted the crowd to engage in "trial by combat," to operate under "very different rules" because fraud was allegedly involved. And he told them they were "not going to let it happen," urging them to stop the election certification proceeding that was about to begin. The people who took Mr. Trump at his word formed a massive crowd that broke onto restricted Capitol grounds and into the building, violently attacking law enforcement officers protecting the Capitol and those inside.

Pg. 84: Rioters have cited Mr. Trump as the reason they traveled to Washington, D.C., and went to the Capitol that day. In the weeks before January 6, Mr. Trump issued several Tweets calling his supporters to Washington, D.C., for his rally at the Ellipse, and they answered the call. In the days after Mr. Trump's December 19 Tweet promising that the rally would be "wild," for instance, Kelly Meggs-a member of the Oath Keepers group who was later convicted of seditious conspiracy among other charges-messaged associates that "[i]t's going to be wild. [Trump] wants us to make it wild. That's what he's saying."

Pg. 85: During the siege, Mr. Trump's supporters continued to heed his words. Video evidence from that afternoon shows rioters, in real time, crediting Mr. Trump for their presence and conduct at the Capitol.

Pg. 87-88: The next consideration, under the Principles of Federal Prosecution, is whether Mr. Trump was subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction. The Office concluded that a prosecution carried out by a single local authority could not effectively hold him accountable for his efforts targeting the only election for national office. Although Mr. Trump was theoretically subject to state criminal charges for his conduct, based on the scope and magnitude of Mr. Trump's alleged crimes, no local prosecution could effectively hold Mr. Trump accountable for his attempts to overturn the valid results of the election, obstruct the congressional certification, and disenfranchise millions of voters. Indeed, all citizens, not just the citizens in the seven contested states that he targeted with his criminal plan, suffered the impact of Mr. Trump's crimes, warranting a federal prosecution accounting for all his conduct and the federal interests it implicated.

Pg. 88-89: Given the strong federal interests in holding Mr. Trump accountable described above, the Office could not identify any adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution. To be sure, because he was President at the time of his alleged offenses, Mr. Trump was subject to impeachment and was in fact impeached (though he was not convicted). Impeachment, however, was never intended to be a substitute for criminal prosecution.

Pg. 90: Senators who voted to acquit Mr. Trump expressed a similar view. See, e.g., 167 CONG. REc. S736 (daily ed. Feb. 13, 2021) (statement of Sen. McConnell) (stating that Mr. Trump "is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen," and noting that "[w]e have a criminal justice system in this country"). Thus, even if Mr. Trump had been convicted by the Senate, political accountability, in the form of impeachment, would not have been an adequate alternative for criminal accountability, especially considering the scope of Mr. Trump's offenses and the substantial federal interests they targeted.

Pg. 95: Mr. Trump's position was that when the judicial process conflicted with his election campaign, the courts should always yield; as discussed below, the courts did not agree.

Pg. 108-110: January 17, 2023, the Office applied for, and the district court authorized, a search warrant requiring Twitter to provide certain information regarding Mr. Trump's Twitter account…The search warrant required Twitter's compliance within ten days of its issuance, but the day before that deadline, its Senior Director of Legal informed the Office that "it would not comply with the Warrant by the next day." Id. at 7-9. Shortly thereafter, Twitter's Senior Director of Legal further informed the Office that it would not comply with the warrant "without changes to the NDO" permitting Twitter to notify Mr. Trump of the warrant. Id. at 9. Twitter claimed that the NDO impinged on its First Amendment interests in communicating with the former President…

The district court later described Twitter's actions as "extraordinary" and noted that its resistance to the NDO appeared to be a first in the company's history…

The Office promptly moved in district court to have Twitter show cause why it should not be held in contempt of court, asking the district court to impose a penalty that doubled with each day of non-compliance, starting at $50,000…

The district court ultimately held that the NDO lawfully prohibited Twitter from notifying Mr. Trump about the warrant and fined Twitter $350,000 for failing to comply with the court-ordered search warrant in a timely fashion, finding that Twitter failed to show good faith and substantial compliance in response to the warrant.”

Pg. 112: A significant challenge that the Office faced after Mr. Trump's indictment was his ability and willingness to use his influence and following on social media to target witnesses, courts, and Department employees, which required the Office to engage in time-consuming litigation to protect witnesses from threats and harassment.

Pg. 113: The same pattern transpired after Mr. Trump's indictment in the Election Case. As the D.C. Circuit later found, Mr. Trump "repeatedly attacked those involved in th[e] case through threatening public statements, as well as messaging daggered at likely witnesses and their testimony," Trump, 88 F.4th at 1010. Those attacks had "real-time, real-world consequences," exposing "those on the receiving end" to "a torrent of threats and intimidation" and turning their lives "upside down."

Pg. 130: In responding to the dissenting Justices' concerns that the vast immunity that the Court provided opened the door to lawless behavior by Presidents in violation of their duty to faithfully execute the law, the Court assessed that a President who uses official power to violate the law was a less likely "prospect" than "an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next."

Pg. 137: The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not tum 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. 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.