That because Trump was in authority at the time of the incident rather than overthrowing an established administration, his acts did not qualify as an insurrection.
Additionally, Smith pointed out that his agency was unable to find “direct evidence” of Trump’s “intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6.”
Smith said that there were particular difficulties in the case against Trump, including as his “ability and willingness” to use social media to threaten and harass prosecutors, judges, and witnesses.
Prosecutors voiced worries about persuading witnesses to participate while the defendant continued to exercise control and influence over his accused co-conspirators, much as in any other conspiracy case.
“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,” concluded the report.
Notwithstanding these reservations, Smith’s report detailed the prosecution’s strategy for refuting Trump’s anticipated defenses.
