Readers are encouraged to submit tips to The Daily Beast. The submission process is streamlined for ease of use. Contributions may lead to impactful investigative journalism. All tips are treated with confidentiality. Contact information is readily available on the website.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report details Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election, including pressuring officials to alter vote counts and incite violence on January 6th. The report concludes that sufficient evidence existed for a conviction had Trump not won the 2024 election. Trump’s actions, according to the report, involved spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud and leveraging the January 6th riot to delay election certification. Despite the evidence, the case was dropped following Trump’s reelection, with the report’s release intended to ensure public transparency.
Jack Smith’s final report on the January 6th case unequivocally states that his case against Donald Trump was robust enough to secure a conviction. This declaration, while seemingly straightforward, carries significant weight given the intense scrutiny and political polarization surrounding the investigation. It highlights the strength of the evidence gathered and the legal arguments developed by Smith’s team, suggesting a high probability of success had the trial proceeded as planned.
The report’s conclusion directly addresses the central question of whether the prosecution’s case was viable. By stating that it could have “sustained a conviction,” Smith effectively counters any claims that the investigation was weak or lacked sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution.… Continue reading
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report details President-elect Trump’s incitement of violence on January 6th, 2020, and the dissemination of demonstrably false election fraud claims. The investigation, involving extensive interviews and witness testimony, concluded that Trump knowingly spread false narratives and that sufficient evidence existed for a conviction had he not been re-elected. Trump’s actions, deemed unprecedented in their disruption of a peaceful transfer of power, faced significant challenges due to his influence and the prospect of his presidency. Despite Trump’s attempts to suppress the report, its release concludes this chapter of the investigation into the January 6th attack.
A judge has ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) can release Jack Smith’s final report on his January 6th case against Donald Trump. This decision comes after a period of legal wrangling, and it represents a significant development in the ongoing saga surrounding the former president and the events leading up to and during the Capitol riot.
The ruling clears the path for the public to finally access the details of Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged actions in the lead-up to and during the January 6th insurrection. This has been a highly anticipated event, with many eagerly awaiting the release of the report to understand the full scope of the findings.… Continue reading
Judge Aileen Cannon denied a request to extend an injunction preventing the Justice Department from releasing a portion of Jack Smith’s report detailing President-elect Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This allows the report’s release, barring further legal action, while a separate section concerning classified documents remains under injunction pending a Friday hearing. A Justice Department motion to immediately release the January 6th-related portion is still awaiting a ruling from the 11th Circuit. The report’s release comes days before Trump’s inauguration, despite his denial of wrongdoing and prior indictments.
Vice President-elect JD Vance supports pardons for non-violent January 6th protesters who he believes have been unfairly prosecuted. However, he opposes pardons for those who committed violence that day, differing from President-elect Trump’s stated intention to pardon all his supporters involved in the riot, regardless of the severity of their actions. Vance acknowledged a gray area regarding violent acts, emphasizing a commitment to equal justice while also suggesting a case-by-case review for those potentially provoked into violence. Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly expressed his intention to issue “major pardons” for Jan. 6 rioters.
Newly unsealed court filings reveal that Donald Trump knowingly propagated false claims of voter fraud and engaged in criminal activity to overturn the 2020 election results. Prosecutors presented evidence showing Trump’s pre-election planning to declare victory prematurely and his post-election efforts to sow chaos and undermine the vote count, even while dismissing advisors’ warnings about the falsity of his claims. The filing details Trump’s interactions with key figures like Mike Pence, highlighting his disregard for legal challenges and contrary statements from officials within his own party. This evidence aims to demonstrate that Trump’s actions were undertaken in a private capacity, not as presidential duties, strengthening the case against him.
Following Vice President-elect JD Vance’s statement that not all January 6th insurrectionists would receive pardons, a backlash erupted among Trump supporters. Vance clarified that pardons would be granted to peaceful protestors unjustly prosecuted, excluding those who committed violence. This contradicted Trump’s prior promises of blanket pardons for all January 6th participants, leading to accusations of betrayal and demands for a complete reversal of the policy. The ensuing conflict highlights the internal divisions within the MAGA movement and the potential for further chaos should Trump fail to fulfill his previous pledges.
Special Counsel Jack Smith submitted his final report on the Trump investigations to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland intends to publicly release volume one, concerning Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision on a temporary injunction. Volume two, related to the classified documents case, will remain confidential to protect ongoing co-defendant cases, though limited access will be granted to Congressional leadership. The Justice Department is seeking to vacate the injunction, allowing for immediate release of volume one if the appeals court rules in their favor.
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood