WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith is pressing forward with his 2020 election interference case against Donald Trump, with a new indictment that aims to salvage the prosecution after the Supreme Court slammed the door on the possibility of a trial before the November election.
Here’s what to know about the case and what happens next: _____ Why file a new indictment?
As a result, the Supreme Court said Trump is immune from prosecution for conduct involving his interactions with the Justice Department, effectively stripping those allegations from the indictment.
The justices sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to analyze what other allegations could potentially proceed to trial.
The new indictment does away with any reference to Trump’s interactions with Justice Department officials, whom prosecutors alleged he tried to enlist in his failed effort to undo his election loss.
Prosecutors alleged Trump tried to use the Justice Department to conduct sham election fraud investigations and send a letter to states falsely claiming that significant fraud had been detected.
Smith’s team noted that a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case brought the indictment.
It is true that longstanding Justice Department guidance cautions against taking overt investigative action in the run-up to an election.
The case is now back in Judge Chutkan’s hands, but it doesn’t mean a trial is going to happen anytime soon.
There will likely be months of legal wrangling over which allegations involve official conduct that should be struck from the indictment.
WASHINGTON (AP)—After the Supreme Court closed the door on a trial before the November election, Special Counsel Jack Smith is moving forward with his 2020 election interference case against Donald Trump with a new indictment that seeks to salvage the prosecution.
Narrowing the charges in an effort to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, the new indictment was filed in Washington on Tuesday and contains the same criminal charges.
What follows in relation to the case is as follows:.
________.
Why would you bring a fresh charge?
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled last month that former presidents are completely exempt from prosecution for official acts that are within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”. “.
Moreover, the Supreme Court held that former presidents are at least presumed immune from further official actions; however, prosecutors may argue that those accusations are still included in the indictment. However, the justices ruled that former presidents are not immune from consequences for their private or unofficial acts.
Consequently, the Supreme Court struck down the accusations made in the indictment, ruling that Trump is not subject to prosecution for actions related to his dealings with the Justice Department. The judges returned the case to the U.S. S. Tanya Chutkan, the district judge, will assess which other charges might go to trial.
By eliminating any mention of claims that they feel may qualify as official acts for which Trump may be granted immunity, Smith’s team is rewriting the indictment in an effort to facilitate Chutkan’s task.
Why is that different?
Prosecutors claim that Trump attempted to enlist the help of Justice Department officials in an unsuccessful attempt to overturn his election defeat, but the new indictment makes no mention of this. According to the prosecution, Trump attempted to send a letter to the states purporting to have discovered significant fraud and to use the Justice Department to carry out fictitious investigations into election fraud.
A portion of the new indictment is also missing, including information regarding Trump’s conversations with senior White House attorneys and the Director of National Intelligence, who prosecutors claim informed Trump that his allegations of election fraud were unfounded.
Furthermore, it includes wording intended to support the prosecution’s claims that Trump took the acts at issue in his personal capacity as a candidate rather than in his official capacity as president.
In reference to Congress’s certification of the 2020 election, for instance, the latest indictment states that while Trump “had no official responsibilities,” he did have a personal stake in winning the election as a candidate. “.
According to the old indictment’s first page, Trump is the 45th U. S. president. Just that Trump “was a candidate for President of the United States in 2020” is stated in the new indictment. “.
Additionally, references to some of Trump’s White House remarks are removed, including the video message he recorded on Twitter from the Rose Garden on January 24 asking his supporters to gather at the Capitol. 6, 2021, to return home, but I reassured them, saying, “We love you, you’re very special.”. However, remarks Trump made prior to the riot at a speech outside the White House are still included in the indictment. According to the indictment, that was a “campaign speech at a privately-funded, privately organized political rally.”.
The indictment was brought by a new grand jury that had not previously heard any evidence in the case, as Smith’s team observed. This action was probably taken to stop Trump’s attorneys from claiming that the grand jury that first indicted him heard evidence that the Supreme Court now maintains cannot be included, thereby tainting the case as a whole.
What didn’t change?
Trump is still accused of four counts: conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. s. as well as plotting against the right to vote. Prosecutors maintained the obstruction charge against Trump, implying they think it will withstand review in his case, despite the Supreme Court’s June ruling in another case that the Justice Department had applied it too broadly against Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol.
The indictment upholds a litany of accusations levied against Trump, including his alleged influence over state officials to tamper with election results and his involvement in an allied plot to assemble a slate of fictitious electors in battleground states who would ostensibly attest to Trump’s victory in those states. The new indictment states that Trump “had no official responsibilities related to the convening of legitimate electors or their signing and mailing of their certificates of vote.”.
It also includes accusations that Trump attempted to coerce Vice President Mike Pence to disregard valid electoral votes and that he and his allies took advantage of the fracas at the Capitol on January 26. 6 in an effort to postpone the official declaration of President Joe Biden’s victory even longer.
What is Trump saying?
The new indictment, which Trump blasted on his Truth Social platform as an act of “desperation” that “has all the problems of the old Indictment and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY!”, sparked the predictable outrage.
He also said that Smith had changed the original indictment in order to “circumvent” the Supreme Court’s decision, but the exact opposite is true: the special counsel’s office was obviously attempting to adhere to the spirit of the opinion rather than skirt it by reducing the case and the allegations.
A “policy” within the Justice Department prohibiting any investigation that could impact a campaign within 60 days of an election was allegedly broken by the Trump administration by bringing the new indictment.
The indictment policy he mentioned is more of an informal, unwritten practice than a strict rule, however, as the actual situation is more nuanced.
True, there is a long-standing advisory from the Justice Department that advises against conducting overt investigations right before an election. Attorneys general have issued memoranda over the years stating that prosecutors should never seek criminal charges or take overt actions, like carrying out a search warrant, in order to influence an election.
The intention is to prevent making new accusations against a candidate that the candidate might not have time to address or that voters might not have time to consider before casting their votes. This revised indictment actually subtracts allegations against Trump rather than adding any new ones, so it doesn’t seem that the guidance is applicable in this case.
How is the trial going? What comes next?
Judge Chutkan has taken back control of the case, but this does not indicate that a trial will take place anytime soon. Months of legal wrangling will probably ensue over which allegations—relating to official conduct—should be removed from the indictment.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Smith’s team and Trump’s attorneys are expected to submit a proposed timeline for upcoming proceedings on Friday. Next week, the parties are expected to reconvene in Chutkan’s courtroom for the first time in several months to deliberate on the next course of action.
