Federal prosecutors presented their strongest case yet against former President Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election in a detailed legal document revealed by a federal judge on Wednesday.
The 165-page paper arrives just weeks prior to an election. Which Donald Trump is embarking on another endeavor fired at the White House, provides fresh information regarding special investigator
Jack Smith’s inquiry on the attempts of the ex-president to rely on government officials and depict a tale of extensive deception prosecutors claim that Trump was aware that it was not true.
New information on Trump’s strained relationship with ex-Vice President Mike Pence, FBI proof of Trump’s phone activity on January 6, 2021 during the Capitol riot, and discussions with relatives and associates as he contested his defeat to Joe Biden are included.
In a general sense, Smith argues in his motion that the former president acted as a political candidate rather than a president when taking certain actions, therefore, he should not receive the immunity granted by the Supreme Court in July.
Smith stated in the brief, which was partially redacted by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, that the defendant turned to illegal activities after losing the 2020 presidential election in an attempt to remain in power.
“In essence, the defendant’s plan was a personal endeavor,” prosecutors stated. “He heavily relied on private individuals and his campaign organization to try to reverse the election outcome while acting privately as a candidate for a political position.”
The document combines testimony from key witnesses given to a federal grand jury and the FBI regarding Donald Trump, as well as new evidence collected by investigators about his actions before and during January 6.
Making public the previously sealed motion is the most recent significant advancement in Smith’s ongoing attempt to hold Donald Trump accountable for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, despite the former president’s bid for reelection against Vice President Kamala Harris. The situation, which has previously been brought to the Supreme Court, has been postponed multiple times as Trump has tried to postpone the trial until after the upcoming election.
The document is divided into four parts. The initial part outlines the prosecution’s argument for trial, detailing evidence; the next section provides Chutkan with guidelines for determining official actions eligible for immunity; the third part explains how these guidelines relate to Trump’s case; the final section concludes by requesting Chutkan to deny immunity and proceed with the trial on the superseding indictment.
Additional proof may surface in the days ahead. A large attachment included in Wednesday’s submission is still confidential, and the judge has requested input from both parties on what portion of it should be disclosed. Included in the appendix are transcripts from grand jury proceedings and FBI interview notes from the investigation that lasted several years.
Trump’s group opposed the document’s release, with the ex-president labeling it a “hit job” on Wednesday and making unsubstantiated claims that it was released as a response to Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate.
The Justice Department is being used as a weapon against me by Democrats because they are aware of my success and are trying to support their struggling candidate, Kamala Harris. Trump posted on Truth Social that the DOJ released this recent ‘hit job’ today in response to JD Vance embarrassing Tim Walz in the Debate last night.
FBI specialists have created a record of Trump’s phone activity during the US Capitol riot. In the filing, Smith stated that a forensic examiner from the FBI Computer Analysis Response Team is able to testify about the “news and social media applications” found on Trump’s phone and the activity on the phone on January 6 afternoon.
The logs indicate that Trump was actively using his phone, specifically the Twitter app, all day after he came back from the Ellipse speech.
Smith mentioned that three unknown witnesses are ready to testify that on January 6, in the afternoon, the TV in the White House dining room, where Trump spent a lot of time, was “on and tuned into news programs that were reporting on the events in the Capitol as they happened.”
That evidence would enable prosecutors to demonstrate to a future jury what Trump witnessed on television as he made remarks and shared online that afternoon.
While encountering a tough standard for presenting evidence involving Pence, Smith’s group aimed to accomplish this by portraying a string of exchanges between the two as discussions between “running mates,” with Pence attempting to persuade Trump to acknowledge his loss in the election.
This includes a November 7, 2020 discussion where Pence supposedly advised Trump to concentrate on his success in revitalizing the GOP, along with Pence’s memory of a meeting between Trump and campaign workers where they were informed that his election challenges seemed unlikely to succeed.
During a lunch on November 12, Pence informed Trump that conceding was not necessary, but he should acknowledge that the process had concluded, according to prosecutors. Trump reportedly mentioned to Pence on a phone call on November 23 that one of his personal attorneys had doubts about the election disputes.
During private discussions, prosecutors claim Pence attempted to support Trump as a friend when news outlets announced Biden’s election win. During different conversations, Pence urged Trump to think about running for president again in 2024. Prosecutors claimed that those interactions were completely unrelated to Trump’s official responsibilities as president.
In the filing, they stated that the discussions in question, regarding the defendant and Pence’s shared electoral destiny, and how to handle the election outcomes, do not impact any aspect of the Executive Branch.
Prosecutors claim Trump himself tweeted that Pence lacked the bravery to challenge the election outcome. The disclosure is included in Smith’s reasoning for why the tweet, shared once the riot started, should be seen as a personal action and thus not covered by presidential immunity.
Smith wrote that the post directed at Pence was “of great personal importance to the accused as a candidate for a position.” Prosecutors claim Trump was aware of the illegality of his request to Pence regarding the Electoral College votes when he tweeted. He was also aware that his supporters in DC believed his false claims of election theft during his speech at the Ellipse, and that these supporters had breached the Capitol building.
At that moment, by themselves, monitoring live news updates, and aware that individuals had entered the Capitol building, the defendant sent the 2:24 p.m. Smith wrote a tweet criticizing Pence for rejecting the defendant’s pleas to participate in the scheme to overturn the election results.
Smith wrote that the tweet conveyed to supporters Pence had disappointed them, not addressing public concerns but revealing a candidate’s anger at losing power.
Just one minute after the tweet was published, Smith reported that the Secret Service had to move Pence to a safe area in the Capitol.
Prosecutors claim to have a witness who will say that Trump told his family members, “Whether you win or lose the election, it’s not important.” You have to continue to struggle fiercely.
According to Smith’s team in the filing, the witness will state that he was on Marine One with then-President Trump when he made the statement to his wife Melania Trump, daughter Ivanka Trump, and son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Authorities did not identify the individual in the document, but they stated that he held the position of Oval Office operations director. Prosecutors wrote that he saw the defendant make a comment to his family members without being prompted, suggesting that he would battle to stay in control even if he didn’t win the election. During that period, Ivanka Trump and Kushner held positions as advisers to the president while Melania Trump served as first lady.
Prosecutors argue that the discussion on Marine One was clearly private and unrelated to the Trump family’s official duties in government.
Prosecutors stated that the accused spoke to his family members, who supported him and acted as his personal counselors, in addition to any official duties they may have had.
Prosecutors claim that Trump’s advisers informed him that the 2020 election results would probably not be determined on Election Day, allowing him to falsely appear to be ahead in the vote count on election night before ultimately falling behind after all ballots were tallied. Despite this, prosecutors say Trump told his advisors he would declare victory before all the ballots were counted.
A private political adviser, on the third day before the 2020 Election Day, characterized Trump’s strategy as: “He will announce his win.” According to the documents, he will claim to be the winner but that does not guarantee his actual victory.
The unnamed adviser, as mentioned by prosecutors, characterized the Democratic lean in mail ballot voting as a “natural disadvantage” and mentioned that Trump will capitalize on it. “That is our plan.”
Smith’s office emphasized that Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election were both personal and politically motivated. Prosecutors stated that the executive branch does not have the power or role to select the next president.
This argument seemed tailored for federal appeals courts, such as the Supreme Court, which have focused heavily on the historical interpretation of the separation of powers.
In simpler terms, Smith contends that Trump’s attempt to reverse the election results was inherently personal, as the Constitution does not grant a president any formal power to select their replacement.
According to the motion, the defendant’s behavior directly goes against these foundational principles. He tried to trespass on authorities designated by the Constitution to different branches, to promote his own selfish desires and continue ruling against the people’s wishes.