BREAKING: Smith Deposition Reveals Key Evidence on Trump’s Inaction During Capitol Riot

WASHINGTON — In a closed-door deposition that legal experts are calling a pivotal moment in the sprawling January 6th investigation, Special Counsel Jack Smith presented evidence allegedly demonstrating former President Donald Trump’s direct, real-time awareness of the unfolding violence at the U.S. Capitol and his deliberate refusal to intervene.

According to transcripts of the testimony obtained by this publication and corroborated by two officials familiar with the proceeding, Smith told lawmakers that evidence shows Trump was “getting calls from people he trusts there, people he relies on to cause the riot, and he still refused to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol.”

“That’s very important evidence of criminal intent in our case,” Smith stated, according to the record, “and that is what I’m revealing to you.”

This revelation, delivered to members of the House Judiciary Committee just hours ago, represents the most explicit public-facing claim yet from the Special Counsel’s office that Trump’s actions—or lack thereof—during the 187-minute siege were not those of a passive or misinformed leader, but of an individual whose intent was aligned with the chaos. It provides a critical narrative link between the former president’s incendiary speech at the Ellipse and the bloody aftermath at the Capitol.

**The Anatomy of 187 Minutes**

The central thrust of Smith’s argument, as outlined in the deposition, hinges on Trump’s state of mind during the critical period between the end of his “Stop the Steal” rally speech at 1:10 p.m. and the release of a video message telling rioters to “go home” at 4:17 p.m.

According to Smith, the evidence—which includes call logs, Secret Service communications, and testimony from multiple witnesses in the White House—paints a picture of a president who was actively receiving updates from trusted allies on the ground. These individuals, whom Smith described as “people he relies on to cause the riot,” were reportedly in direct contact with rally organizers and militia group leaders who spearheaded the initial breach of the Capitol.

“The President was not in an informational vacuum,” Smith asserted. “He was being given accounts of the violence, of the breach, and of the specific threats to lawmakers, including his own Vice President. The repeated advice from nearly every senior advisor—to issue an immediate, clear, public statement calling for peace—was met with silence, or with refusals.”

Smith’s team contends that this refusal is the linchpin for establishing criminal intent for charges potentially including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. The legal theory posits that Trump’s inaction was not negligence, but a calculated part of the plan to disrupt the certification of the Electoral College vote.

**A Witness Shaken**

One committee member present, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, described the atmosphere as “chilling.”

“Smith is a famously taciturn prosecutor. He deals in facts, not drama,” the lawmaker said. “But when he laid out the timeline, minute by minute, call log by call log, and juxtaposed it with the desperate pleas coming from the Capitol Police, from congressional leaders, from his own staff… it was devastating. He presented it not as a political argument, but as a cold, prosecutorial roadmap. The implication of willful dereliction was inescapable.”

The deposition also touched on the content of the calls Trump received. While Smith did not publicly name all individuals, sources indicate they include political organizers who had helped plan the January 6 rally and who were in direct contact with figures like Ali Alexander and the leaders of the Proud Boys. The argument is that these callers were not panicked observers, but participants reporting on the progress of an event they helped instigate.

**The Defense and the Road Ahead**

Trump’s legal team and spokespeople have consistently argued that the former president did eventually call for peace and that he believed the National Guard was being deployed. In a statement released minutes after news of the deposition broke, a Trump spokesperson called Smith’s claims “a desperate and fabricated fairytale by a corrupt prosecutor to interfere in an election.”

“President Trump has always condemned violence and acted to ensure the safety of all Americans,” the statement read.

However, Smith’s presentation appears designed to systematically dismantle that defense by compressing the timeline and emphasizing Trump’s contemporaneous knowledge. The evidence of real-time communication, if proven in court, makes it far more difficult to claim Trump was unaware of the severity of the situation.

The political reverberations are immediate. The disclosure comes amid the backdrop of a surging impeachment effort in the House and will undoubtedly fuel calls for expedited hearings. For the Department of Justice, it signals that Smith’s investigation is reaching its conclusive phases, focusing not just on the rioters but on the conduct and intent of the man at the Resolute Desk.

As one constitutional scholar noted, “For months, the question has been ‘What did he know and when did he know it?’ Smith just provided his answer: He knew it was happening, he knew who was causing it, and he chose to let it burn. In law, we call that a *mens rea*—a guilty mind. And proving that is everything.”