DELIVERY BY HAND
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland
Attorney General of the United States
Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
U.S. Department of Justice
Jack Smith
Special Counsel
January 7, 2025
Re: Final Report of the Special Counsel Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
In the fall of 2022, former President Donald J. Trump was a subject of two separate criminal
investigations by the Department of Justice. The first was an investigation into whether any person
violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following
the 2020 presidential election. The second investigation focused on the possession of highly
classified documents at Mr. Trump's Mar-a-Lago social club following his presidency.
On November 15, 2022, Mr. Trump declared his candidacy to unseat President Joseph R.
Biden, Jr. , who had previously stated his intention to stand for reelection. Mr. Trump's
announcement created a highly unusual situation, in which the Department, an agency within the
Executive Branch headed by President Biden, was conducting criminal investigations regarding
his newly declared challenger. Based on a longstanding recognition that " in certain extraordinary
cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an
investigation and prosecution," you, as the Attorney General, promptly did so here to "underscore[]
the Department's commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive
matters." Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Remarks on the Appointment of a Special
Counsel, Washington, D.C. (Nov. 18, 2022).
On the day that I was appointed, I pledged that I would exercise independent judgment,
follow the best traditions of the Department of Justice, and conduct my work expeditiously and
thoroughly to reach whatever outcome the facts and law dictated. With the aid of an outstanding
team, that is what I did. Upon my appointment, I organized a staff of experienced career federal
prosecutors, and together we conducted the investigations and subsequent prosecutions under our
mandate, consistent with the Department's traditions of integrity and nonpartisanship that have
guided all of us throughout our career
Attorney General Edward H. Levi, who assumed the Department's helm in the wake of
Watergate, summed up those traditions best:
[O]ne paramount concern must always guide our way. This is the keeping of the
faith in the essential decency and even-handedness in the law, a faith which is the
strength of the law and which must be continually renewed or else it is lost. In a
society that too easily accepts the notion that everything can be manipulated, it is
important to make clear that the administration of federal justice seeks to be
impartial and fair ....
Address to the Los Angeles County Bar Association, Los Angeles, CA (Nov. 18, 1976). Attorney
General Levi's remarks, shared 46 years to the day before my appointment, ring as true now as
they did then.
I have been a career prosecutor in local, national, and international settings over the last
three decades, working shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of prosecutors in that time. The
prosecutors and staff of the Special Counsel's Office are, in my estimation, without peer in terms
of accomplishment, capability, judgment, and work ethic. More importantly in my book, they are
people of great decency and the highest personal integrity. The intense public scrutiny of our
Office, threats to their safety, and relentless unfounded attacks on their character and integrity did
not deter them from fulfilling their oaths and professional obligations. These are intensely good
people who did hard things well. I will not forget the sacrifices they made and the personal
resilience they and their families have shown over the last two years. Our country owes them a
debt of gratitude for their unwavering service and dedication to the rule of law. Without pause
they have upheld the Department's commitment to the impartial and independent pursuit of justice.
For that, I am grateful-as I know you are as well.
Staffed by some of the most experienced prosecutors in the Department, my Office
operated under the same Department policies and procedures that guide all federal prosecutors.
The regulations under which I was appointed required that we do so, see 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), and
our work benefited from those processes. The Department has long recognized that proceeding
with "uniformity of policy ... is necessary to the prestige of federal law." Robert H. Jackson,
"The Federal Prosecutor" (April 1, 1940). As a result, throughout our work we regularly consulted
the Justice Manual, the Department's publicly available guidebook on policies and procedures,
and adhered to its requirements.
Our work rested upon the fundamental value of our democracy that we exist as "a
government of laws, and not of men." John Adams, Novanglus, No. VII at 84 (Mar. 6, 1775). In
making decisions as Special Counsel, I considered as a first principle whether our actions would
contribute to upholding the rule of law, and acted accordingly. Our committed adherence to the
rule of law is why we not only followed Department policies and procedures, but strictly observed
legal requirements and dutifully respected the judicial decisions and precedents our prosecutions
prompted. That is also why, in my decision-making, I heeded the imperative that "[n]o man in this
country is so high that he is above the law," UnUed States v. Lee, I 06 U.S. 196,220 (1882). Simply
put: the Department of Justice's guiding mandate, which my Office strove to uphold, is that power,
politics, influence, status, wealth, fear, and favor should not impede justice under the law.
When I assumed responsibility for the matters you assigned to me, I came to the work with
no preconceived notion of what the just outcome of the investigations would be. I was not yet
familiar with all of the relevant facts and had not yet researched the relevant law. Depending upon
what the investigations revealed, I was equally comfortable closing the investigations or moving
forward with prosecutions in one or both of the matters, having done both in high profile matters
throughout my career.
To make prosecutorial determinations, my Office gathered relevant evidence and examined
whether that evidence established violations of federal criminal law. In doing so I was guided by
the Principles of Federal Prosecution, a series of considerations designed to promote the fair and
evenhanded application of the law. As set forth in my Report, after conducting thorough
investigations, I found that, with respect to both Mr. Trump's unprecedented efforts to unlawfully
retain power after losing the 2020 election and his unlawful retention of classified documents after
leaving office, the Principles compelled prosecution. Indeed, Mr. Trump's cases represented ones
"in which the offense [was] the most flagrant, the public haim the greatest, and the proof the most
certain." Jackson, "The Federal Prosecutor."
As directed by the Principles, I made my decision in these cases without regard to Mr.
Trump's "political association, activities, or beliefs," or the possible personal or professional
consequences of a prosecution for me or any member of my Office. Justice Manual § 9-27.260.
"[T]he likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because
of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his cause," or the converse, were not factors
in my prosecutive decisions. Id. § 9-27.220 (Comment). My Office also adhered at all times to
the Department's policy against interfering in elections. As a former Chief of the Department's
Public Integrity Section, it was important to me, as it is to you, that we adhere to both the letter
and spirit of this policy. I can assure you that neither l nor the prosecutors on my team would have
tolerated or taken part in any action by our Office for partisan political purposes. Throughout my
service as Special Counsel, seeking to influence the election one way or the other, or seeking to
interfere in its outcome, played no role in our work. My Office had one north star: to follow the
facts and law wherever they led. Nothing more and nothing less.
While I relied greatly on the counsel, judgment, and advice of our team, I want it to be
clear that the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I
stand behind fully. To have done otherwise on the facts developed during our work would have
been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and a public servant. After nearly 30 years of public
service, that is a choice I could not abide.
It is equally important for me to make clear that nobody within the Department of Justice
ever sought to interfere with, or improperly influence, my prosecutorial decision making. The
regulations under which I was appointed provided you with the authority to countermand my
decisions, 28 C.F.R. § 600.7, but you did not do so. Nor did you, the Deputy Attorney General, or
members of your staff ever attempt to improperly influence my decision as to whether to bring
charges against Mr. Trump. And to all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my
decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political
actors is, in a word, laughable.
While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our
team stood up for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for
justice without regard for the personal costs matters. The facts, as we uncovered them in our
investigation and as set forth in my Report, matter. Experienced prosecutors know that you cannot
control outcomes, you can only do your job the right way for the right reasons. I conclude our
work confident that we have done so, and that we have met fully our obligations to the Department
and to our country.
Accompanying this letter, I am providing you "a confidential report explaining the
prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel." 28 C.F.R. § 600.8. The
Report consists of two volumes: Volume One addresses the Election Case, and Volume Two
addresses the Classified Documents Case. I understand that you are considering whether all or
part of my Report can be made public, consistent with applicable legal restrictions. See 28 C.F.R.
§ 600.9(c). Both volumes minimize the identification of witnesses and co-conspirators, consistent
with accepted Department practice, and we have provided a redacted version of Volume Two that
identifies certain information that remains under seal or is restricted from public disclosure by
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Because Volume Two discusses the conduct of Mr.
Trump's alleged co-conspirators in the Classified Documents Case, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De
Oliveira, consistent with Department policy, Volume Two should not be publicly released while
their case remains pending.
Though not required, prior to finalizing the Report, my Office provided an opportunity for
counsel for Mr. Trump to review both volumes, and for counsel for his former co-defendants in
the Classified Documents Case, Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira, to review Volume Two. After
their review, counsel for Mr. Trump wrote a letter to you, and we have provided a written response
to you, both of which you will find as an Addendum to the Report.
With this Report, my service and the service of my staff is complete. I thank you for the
trust you placed in me and my team and for affording us the independence necessary to conduct
our work. Public service is a privilege, and we deeply appreciate the opportunity to serve our
Nation in seeking to uphold the rule of law.
Since¼
t(;__SMITH
= new reply since forum marked as read
