Jack Smith

Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.

Yes.

After an investigation following the facts and the law, we believed we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prove those charges.

Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power.

Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity.

We followed the facts and we followed the law.

Where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme committed

to block the peaceful transfer of power.

But you are correct that the only person charged in this case was Donald Trump, who, in my estimation, was the person most culpable for the crimes charged.

He did.

Our proof showed that he caused what happened on January 6th, that it was foreseeable, and that he exploited that violence.

Our proof was that he did, and we intended to prove that at trial.

That statement is consistent with what we found in our investigation in that Martians

Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election.

He was looking for ways to stay in power.

And when people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them.

Or he chose not even to contact people like that who would know if the election was done properly in the state.

On the other hand, when individuals would say things that would allow him to stay in power, no matter how fantastical, he would latch on to those.

That pattern, over time, we felt was powerful evidence that he, in fact, knew that the fraud claims he was making were false.

I had evidence that he said, if you come after me, I'm coming after you.