Aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman collides with ship in Mediterranean Sea

Special counsel Jack Smith’s final report lays out in no uncertain terms federal prosecutors’ position that Donald Trump — who is set to be inaugurated president in less than a week — would have been convicted on multiple felonies for his alleged efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election, had voters not decided to send him back to the White House in the 2024 election.

That was one of the primary conclusions included in Smith’s final report on his election interference investigation, which the Justice Department released early Tuesday morning after a federal judge, late Monday night, cleared the way for the report’s release.

The report lays out the probe that resulted in Trump being charged in 2023 with four felony counts of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The case, as well as Smith’s classified documents case against Trump, was dropped following Trump’s reelection in November due to a longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.

“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 said. “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.”

After conducting interviews with 250 witnesses voluntarily, calling 55 people to testify before the grand jury, executing dozens of subpoenas and search warrants, and sifting through a terabyte of publicly accessible data, Smith’s team concluded they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed multiple federal crimes when he attempted to overturn the election, the report said.

“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report said.

For the first time, the report shed light on the internal deliberations of the prosecutors who sought to prove that Trump “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort” while navigating the uncharted legal territory of charging a former president.

While prosecutors considered charging Trump with violating the Insurrection Act, Smith wrote that he opted against the approach because of the “litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute.” According to the report, prosecutors worried that Trump’s actions did not amount to an insurrection because he was already in power — rather than challenging a sitting government — when the riot took place. Smith also noted that his office did not obtain “direct evidence” of Trump’s “intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6.”

Smith also noted that the case against Trump presented unique challenges, including Trump’s “ability and willingness” to use social media to target witnesses, courts, and prosecutors with “threats and harassment.” Like any other case involving a conspiracy, prosecutors also expressed concerns about convincing witnesses to cooperate while the defendant still exerted influence and command over his alleged co-conspirators.

“That dynamic was amplified in this case given Mr. Trump’s political and financial status, and the prospect of his future election to the presidency,” the report said.

Despite those concerns, Smith’s report laid out how prosecutors planned to rebut Trump’s expected arguments to secure a conviction, laying out a play-by-play for how a trial would have proceeded had Trump lost the election.

If the former president argued that he acted in good faith when he claimed there was election fraud, prosecutors would present “strong proof” that Trump himself knew his claims of fraud were false. The report noted that Trump repeatedly noted in private how he lost the election, including berating Vice President Mike Pence for being “too honest” to challenge the results, telling his family “you still have to fight like hell” even if he lost the election, and remarking to a staffer, “Can you believe I lost to this f’ing guy?” after seeing Biden on television.

“This was not a case in which Mr. Trump merely misstated a fact or two in a handful of isolated instances. On a repeated basis, he and co-conspirators used specific and knowingly false claims of election fraud,” the report said.

If Trump argued he was following the advice of his lawyers, prosecutors planned to present evidence showing that his lawyers were acting as accomplices to the crime, preventing Trump from legally being able to employ the argument.

And if Trump argued that he was just using his First Amendment right when he challenged the election, prosecutors planned to highlight that Trump employed his statements to commit other crimes, including using false statements to defeat a government function, obstruct an official proceeding, and injure the right to vote.

“The Office was cognizant of Mr. Trump’s free speech rights during the investigation and would not have brought a prosecution if the evidence indicated he had engaged in mere political exaggeration or rough-and-tumble politics,” the report said. “The conduct of Mr. Trump and co-conspirators, however, went well beyond speaking their minds or contesting the election results through our legal system.”

In the report, Smith also detailed multiple interviews with various so-called “fake electors” who he said sought to cast votes for Trump — and admitted they would not have done so “had they known the true extent of co-conspirators’ plans.”

Smith told how investigators obtained Signal messages where “Co-Conspirator 4” — previously identified by ABC News as former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark — sent a message to Rep. Scott Perry saying he had received a highly classified briefing on foreign interference in the 2020 election that “yielded nothing” to support allegations of a stolen election.

“Bottom line is there is nothing helpful to P,” Clark’s message said, according to the report.

The report cites the handwritten notes of former Vice President Mike Pence that the special counsel obtained, about which Smith wrote, “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.'”

Regarding the House select committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the report said that probe only “comprised a small part of the Office’s investigative record, and any facts on which the Office relied to make a prosecution decision were developed or verified through independent interviews and other investigative steps.”

Volume One of Smith’s final report was released to the public early Tuesday after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, following a weeklong court battle, ruled Monday that the Justice Department could release it.

Trump’s former co-defendants in his classified documents case, longtime aide Walt Nauta and staffer Carlos De Oliveira, had sought to block the release of both the classified documents volume and the Jan. 6 volume, but Cannon — who last year dismissed the classified documents case — allowed the public release of the Jan. 6 volume after determining that its contents have no bearing on the evidence or charges related Nauta and De Oliveira in their ongoing case.

After conferring with Smith, Garland determined that he would not publicly release Volume Two pertaining to the classified documents investigation because Nauta and De Oliveira’s cases were technically still on appeal.

In the classified documents case, Trump pleaded not guilty in 2023 to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information. The former president, along with Nauta and De Oliveira, pleaded not guilty in a superseding indictment to allegedly attempting to delete surveillance footage at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Smith resigned as special prosecutor on Friday after wrapping up the cases and submitting his report to Garland.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The mayors of Boston, Chicago, Denver and New York City faced a fiery House Oversight Committee during a blockbuster hearing on sanctuary cities on Wednesday.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams all defended their actions on immigration enforcement in their respective cities as Republicans on the committee accused them of increasing crime and impeding on law enforcement actions.

“The mayors here today each lead so-called ‘sanctuary cities,’ and let’s be clear, these policies only create sanctuary for criminals,” Chairman James Comer, a Republican, said in his opening remarks.

“Today, mayors Wu, Johnson, Johnston and Adams will be publicly accountable for their failure to follow the law and protect the American people.”

Sanctuary cities still enforce U.S. federal immigration laws, but the term often refers to a limited collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while enacting policies that are more favorable to undocumented people.

Democrats immediately criticized the Trump administration, arguing the overreach of federal officials has led to unlawful detentions and created fear in communities.

“Republicans have hauled before us the mayors of four major American cities to frame them as lawless, because those cities have some limits on how intrusively and aggressively their own officials can conduct federal immigration operations and responsibilities,” Ranking Member Gerry Connolly said.

“Let’s be clear, the state and local laws that Republicans have issue with today are in full compliance with federal law. They do not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and they are backed by evidence demonstrating that they keep people safe.”

Throughout the hearing, the mayors took turns defending their status, describing how they work with law enforcement on arrests while also creating policies that make their cities more safe.

“As mayor, I do not control who enters or remains in our country, but I do have to manage the population that is within our city,” said Adams, who said as New York City mayor he is working with the Trump administration on immigration aid. “In order to carry out this function without having long term negative ramification, I must create an atmosphere that allows every law abiding resident, documented or not to access vital services without fear of being turned over to federal authorities.”

Wu said that the Trump administration is making “hard-working, tax-paying, God-fearing residents afraid to live their lives.”

“A city that scared is not a city that’s safe. A land ruled by fear is not the land of the free,” Wu said.

Wednesday’s committee hearing comes as President Donald Trump’s administration officials have ramped up their immigration enforcement efforts with Attorney General Pam Bondi shutting down federal grants to sanctuary cities and multiple threats “border czar” Tom Homan has issued toward these mayors if they refuse to comply.

On Tuesday, Bondi said efforts to crack down on immigration enforcement would increase in Boston, citing a lack of effort from Wu to prosecute undocumented immigrants.

“As a result of the Mayor’s decision to side with public safety threats over law-abiding citizens, DOJ will have no choice but to increase efforts in the city of Boston. Criminals will be prosecuted, illegal aliens will be arrested, and justice will be served,” Bondi posted on X.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei about negotiating a nuclear deal, while also threatening military action if an agreement isn’t reached.

Trump said he sent the letter on Wednesday during an interview with Fox Business, a clip of which was released by the network on Friday.

“There are two ways Iran can be handled, militarily or you make a deal. I would prefer to make a deal,” Trump told Fox host Maria Bartiromo.

“I would rather negotiate a deal. I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily,” Trump said. “But the time is happening now, the time is coming up. Something is going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran, and I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily it’s going to be a terrible thing for them.”

Bartiromo asked the president if he gave Iranian leadership an ultimatum.

“No I didn’t say, ‘You better.’ I said, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate,’ because it will be a lot better for Iran. I think they want to get that letter. The other alternative is we have to do something because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump warned.

This isn’t the first time Trump has sent a message to Khamenei. In 2019, with the help of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he sent a similar message, but the Iranian leader publicly rejected that offer to talk.

Khamenei reportedly said at the time, “I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging any message with.”

Trump’s comments proposing a nuclear deal come after he withdrew the U.S. from an agreement reached between Iran and the Obama administration during his first term in office. That nuclear deal, established in 2015, allowed Iran to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% purity and maintain a stockpile of uranium of 300 kilograms.

Last month, Trump signed a memorandum that seeks to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran, including pushing its oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from possessing nuclear weapons capability.

“I’m going to sign it, but hopefully we’re not going to have to use it very much. We will see whether or not we can arrange or work out a deal with Iran,” he said.

Asked about what kind of deal he’d like to see, Trump responded: “We’re going to see. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. With me, it’s very simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

As he spoke on the issue in the Oval Office, Trump also said he’s left instructions to “obliterate” Iran if they ever carried out an assassination.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.