Jack Smith Stands Down: What It Means for Trump’s Opponents

For many who hoped to see Donald Trump face accountability for January 6, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith embodied their hope for justice. Known for his rigorous investigation into Trump’s actions, Smith was seen as a steadfast figure in the effort to uncover the truth and hold Trump accountable for his role in the Capitol riot. Now, with Smith stepping down as Trump prepares to re-enter office, this resignation marks a turning point that raises questions about the future of accountability and transparency. What does this mean for those who believed in Smith’s work? And will the pursuit of justice continue, or is this the moment Trump’s critics feared?

1. Smith’s Departure: A Symbolic Blow to Accountability Jack Smith’s decision to step down has struck a symbolic blow for those who saw him as a check on Trump’s power and influence. His investigation into January 6 centered on whether Trump’s actions went beyond free speech and entered into illegal territory. Smith examined Trump’s speech at the “Stop the Steal” rally, his delayed response to the Capitol riot, and his connections to convicted individuals. For many, Smith represented an independent pursuit of justice that transcended partisan divides. His departure now leaves unanswered questions about whether Trump will face full accountability for his role in one of America’s darkest days.

2. Trump’s Defense: Free Speech and Political Advocacy Throughout Smith’s investigation, Trump’s defense has hinged on his First Amendment rights. He argues that his speech, including calls for his supporters to “fight like hell,” was within the bounds of lawful political advocacy. Smith’s findings acknowledged this, examining the nuances between protected speech and incitement. Legally, incitement requires a high bar—speech likely to produce imminent lawless action. Smith concluded that Trump’s words did not meet this standard, which some critics see as a legal victory for Trump and a blow to those who hoped for stronger charges.

3. Obstruction of Congress and the Pressure on Pence Smith’s investigation also scrutinized Trump’s actions around obstructing Congress during the electoral certification process. Trump and his advisors, including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, argued that contesting the results was a legitimate part of the democratic process. Smith’s findings, however, noted that Trump’s team pressured Mike Pence to reject the certification, raising questions about whether this crossed into unlawful coercion. Smith’s resignation leaves these questions unresolved, underscoring the legal complexity of Trump’s tactics and whether his actions constituted obstruction.

4. Connections to Convicted Individuals and Their Implications Smith’s findings also explored Trump’s ties to individuals already convicted for their involvement in the Capitol attack:

• The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys: Leaders of these groups, like Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio, were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in January 6. Smith’s team found that these groups felt encouraged by Trump’s rhetoric, even without direct orders, fueling their commitment to the “Stop the Steal” narrative.
• Roger Stone: A longtime ally, Stone’s ties with the Proud Boys and involvement in the “Stop the Steal” movement were well-documented. While not criminally charged in connection to January 6, Stone’s proximity to Trump and his influence on rioters added weight to Smith’s findings on indirect encouragement.
• Trump’s Legal Advisors: Giuliani and Eastman advised Trump on election challenges that contributed to escalating tensions, even with questionable legal foundations. Smith’s findings highlighted how their advice fueled Trump’s narrative, though they stopped short of recommending criminal charges.

5. Trump’s Delayed Response to Disperse Rioters Perhaps the most pointed criticism of Trump’s actions on January 6 was his failure to quickly call for calm. Reports show that Trump was informed early about escalating violence at the Capitol, including Pence’s evacuation and the injury of law enforcement officers. However, at 2:24 p.m.—well after the violence began—Trump tweeted, saying Pence lacked the “courage” to reject the electoral count, a message many saw as inflammatory. It wasn’t until 4:17 p.m., nearly three hours into the riot, that Trump finally told the rioters to disperse. Smith’s findings emphasize this delayed response as a failure in fulfilling his presidential duty to protect democratic institutions and ensure a peaceful transition of power.

6. Motive and Potential Criminality: The Investigation Left Unfinished One of the central questions Smith’s investigation sought to answer was whether Trump’s motive and purpose in his actions crossed into criminal intent. Was Trump’s delay an intentional act to obstruct Congress, or was it simply a political strategy taken too far? Smith’s resignation has left this inquiry incomplete, casting doubt on whether Trump’s actions will ever be fully evaluated. For many Americans, the departure of an independent investigator highlights fears that justice is vulnerable to political shifts, raising doubts about whether accountability can truly exist outside of political pressures.

7. What the 2024 Election Results Say About Accountability The 2024 election results further complicate the picture of accountability. Trump won the presidency with 72.6 million votes, while Kamala Harris received 68 million—a significant drop in voter turnout for both parties compared to 2020. This decline reflects growing disillusionment among voters on both sides and suggests a dissatisfaction not only with Trump but with a political system seen as increasingly polarized. For Democrats, who lost millions of voters, this outcome is a stark reminder of the erosion of public trust in the political process. It signals the need for greater transparency and sincere engagement with issues like accountability if they hope to regain confidence among the electorate.

Conclusion: Accountability and the Lessons from January 6

The events of January 6 reveal two critical failures that have become a defining challenge for American democracy. First, a president’s primary responsibility is to ensure the peaceful transition of power and safeguard democratic institutions. As the Capitol faced unprecedented threats, Trump delayed his response and tweeted statements perceived as inflammatory. His call for calm finally came hours later, marking a delayed action that left institutions vulnerable.

The second issue centers on Trump’s motives and the boundaries of criminal intent—a question Jack Smith was actively investigating. For those who saw Smith as a vital check on Trump’s actions, his resignation raises concerns about the impartiality of the justice system. Smith’s departure underscores the public’s desire for a justice system that is independent, impartial, and unaffected by political influence.

As the nation reflects on the lessons of January 6, the 2024 election results present a call for introspection. Trump’s victory with nearly two million fewer votes than in 2020 and the substantial loss in Democratic support reflect a public disillusioned by both sides of the political spectrum. If leaders hope to restore faith in democracy, they must commit to greater transparency and accountability. For those disappointed by Smith’s resignation, the message is clear: it’s time to look in the mirror and consider what democracy truly demands from its leaders, and what the American people deserve from the institutions that represent them.