🚨 BREAKING: Six Republicans side with Democrats as the House overturns Trump’s Canada tariffs — a significant setback for the former president.

In a dramatic and detailed deposition that could reshape the legal and political landscape, Special Counsel Jack Smith revealed what he described as pivotal new evidence directly tying former President Donald Trump to the events of January 6, 2021.

According to an exclusive report from sources present for the closed-door proceedings, Smith stated his team has secured proof that Trump, while watching the riot unfold, received urgent calls from trusted individuals at the Capitol who were relied upon to foment the unrest, yet willfully refused for hours to take action to stop the violence.

The disclosure, made in a deposition just hours ago, marks one of the most significant public glimpses into the heart of the Justice Department’s sprawling criminal investigation. Smith framed the evidence as a cornerstone for establishing criminal intent.

The evidence shows he 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,” Smith stated, according to a source who took detailed notes. “That’s very important evidence of criminal intent in our case, and that is what I’m revealing to you.”

The “Trusted Contacts” and the Refusal to Act

While the identities of the callers were not disclosed in the deposition, the characterization points to individuals central to the day’s events. This narrative suggests a direct line of communication between the Oval Office and key figures on the ground during the assault. Legal experts immediately seized on the gravity of this assertion.

“If proven, this is the kind of evidence that transforms a case,” said former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth. “It goes beyond fiery rhetoric or political pressure. It speaks to a state of mind—knowledge of the unlawful activity of his agents, coupled with a conscious decision not to fulfill his constitutional duty to stop it. For a jury, that is powerfully damning.”