What were the specific charges and evidence in the indictments brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith?

1. The election‑interference indictment — charges laid out

Smith’s Jan. 6‑focused indictment charged a conspiracy to obstruct the government’s function of selecting and certifying the president under federal statutes (described in Smith’s final report and summarized by reporting) and included counts tied to defrauding the United States and impeding official proceedings; Smith explicitly did not charge Trump with the crime of insurrection even while asserting Trump was “most responsible” for the events of Jan. 6 ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The election‑interference indictment — the evidence Smith cited

In his public and private testimony Smith said the office had collected a range of documentary and testimonial evidence—witness accounts, subpoenas to election officials, phone and tolling records, social‑media posts and public statements, and investigative findings showing coordination with others—that he argued showed knowingly false claims and actions taken in furtherance of a conspiracy to block certification ^{[5] [6] [7] [1]}. Smith told Congress his team believed Trump’s public statements and private conduct went beyond protected political speech into knowingly false misrepresentations used to advance a criminal scheme ^{[1] [3]}.

3. The classified‑documents indictment — charges laid out

The documents case produced a 37‑count federal indictment that included willful retention of national defense information, obstruction of justice, and related conspiracy counts tied to Trump’s retention and handling of presidential records after leaving office; the initial grand jury returned probable‑cause findings that supported those statutory charges ^{[2] [8] [1]}.

4. The classified‑documents indictment — the evidence Smith cited

Smith’s office cited the physical recovery of roughly 300 documents from Mar‑a‑Lago, including some marked as classified and some relating to nuclear and military planning, plus testimony and records showing efforts to conceal or impede federal inquiries, as the core evidence that Trump willfully retained and obstructed recovery of sensitive materials ^{[8] [5] [2]}. Smith emphasized that his team amassed what they viewed as “powerful” documentary proof and witness testimony to meet criminal standards ^{[5] [3]}.

5. Legal and procedural outcomes that shaped the cases

Both prosecutions were later abandoned by Smith after Trump’s 2024 election victory because of longstanding Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president, and aspects of the documents case were contested in court—Judge Aileen Cannon at one point dismissed the classified‑documents prosecution, and other appellate rulings over immunity and what constituted official acts further complicated prosecutions; Smith nonetheless filed superseding materials before the matters were dropped ^{[2] [9]}.

6. Competing narratives and the limits of public record

Republicans and the president have characterized Smith’s work as partisan and politically motivated, pressing questions about investigative tactics such as tolling‑record collection and subpoenas; Smith and supporters counter that the evidence—not politics—drove indictments and that his office would have pursued charges regardless of party ^{[6] [3]}. Reporting and Smith’s public report outline the types of evidence gathered, but some forensic details and the full evidentiary record remain in filings and grand‑jury materials not fully public, limiting outside verification of every claim ^{[1] [5]}.