The special counsel who indicted former President Donald J. Trump on criminal conspiracy charges as he sought to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss laid out key evidence and arguments why the case should be prosecuted. I submitted a long preliminary document. It moved forward despite the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity.
Here are some key points from the 165-page brief, most of which the judge unsealed Wednesday.
Prosecutors revealed new evidence.
The brief contains far more detail than the indictment and provides information previously included in the public record about the events leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters. It contained many specific claims that were not made.
None of the new details were game-changing revelations, but they add further texture to the history available. For example, part of the brief focused on social media posts that Trump sent the afternoon of the Capitol attack, telling Vice President Mike Pence that he had let down all of his supporters.
At the time, Trump was sitting alone in a dining room near the Oval Office. Forensic data showed he used the Twitter app on his phone and watched Fox News, according to the brief. Fox had just interviewed a man who was unhappy that Pence would not block the certification, and then reported that a police officer was injured and protesters may have breached the Capitol.
Trump tweeted that Pence lacked the “courage” to do the right thing. The mob was furious at the vice president, and the Secret Service took him to a safe location. Trump’s aides rushed to warn Pence of the danger, but Trump simply looked at them and said, “So what?” According to the summary.
Prosecutors argued that many of the acts could not be excused.
The brief makes a series of arguments for why the bulk of the evidence should be considered unofficial actions by presidential candidates and therefore not subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents are largely immune from prosecution based on official actions. was raised.
Special Counsel Jack Smith said the bulk of the evidence centers on campaign meetings and conversations Trump had in his capacity as a candidate for office, rather than in the performance of his duties as president. emphasized.
And Smith has been a witness to campaign-related developments at the White House, as an Oval Office aide testified that she heard Trump tell his daughter and son-in-law after the election: He argued that he should be allowed to call in his aides. It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose the election. You still have to fight hard. ”
In a prepared statement, Smith argued that the statement was “obviously private” because it related to the election and was delivered to families who campaigned on Trump’s behalf. “The fact that White House staff heard it does not mean it is an official communication,” the brief said.
The application came at a politically critical time.
The trial court has been at a standstill for almost a year as the prosecution and defense argue over the issue of immunity. But in the final weeks of the year, Trump’s decision to grant prosecutors’ requests for the release of redacted briefs by Judge Tanya S. The allegations against him have attracted new attention. Polls suggest the presidential campaign could go either way.
Trump continues to make baseless accusations of 2020 election fraud. During Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, vice presidential candidate Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio was asked directly whether Trump lost four years ago. Mr. Vance avoided it. “I’m focused on the future,” he said.
The judge now has to make a big decision.
In much the same way that Smith and his attorneys presented a trove of incriminating evidence against Trump in their argument that the case can proceed, the former president’s lawyers will soon This will likely refute the prosecution’s claims. They plan to send to Judge Chutkan what they consider to be exculpatory evidence, as well as arguments that various acts should be considered off-limits as impunity.
The defense currently has an Oct. 17 deadline to file a response to Smith’s brief, but that date could be pushed back if Trump’s lawyers request more time.
After both sides filed court papers summarizing their objections, Judge Chutkan will decide which parts of Trump’s election interference indictment should survive the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and which parts should be thrown out. I will do it.
Her final decision could be appealed and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, which could ultimately have the final say on how much of the charges go to trial.
