U.S. federal prosecutors unveiled their most comprehensive case against former President Donald Trump on Wednesday, focusing on his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The extensive legal measures Shortwhich details the government’s allegations, was released by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the high-profile criminal charges against Trump.
“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes in an attempt to remain in power,” special counsel Jack Smith wrote in the 165-page brief.
“Even if the accused was the outgoing president at the time of the incriminated plots, his project was fundamentally private,” he added.
The fact that Trump acted in his private capacity in attempting to overturn the election result is at the heart of the argument that Smith’s case attempts to make. In July, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for all official acts performed while in office.
Smith’s new filing argues that Trump remains subject to trial for his efforts to overturn President Joe Biden’s election victory because his actions were not done in his capacity as president, but rather to promote the interests of his campaign.
Here are some key takeaways from the case.
“So what?” : Trump on Pence’s security under threat
On January 6, 2021, when a rampaging mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol in Washington, D.C., seeking to overturn Congress’s confirmation of Biden’s victory, some of them chanted slogans suggesting they wanted to hang Vice President Mike Pence.
Pence had refused to follow Trump’s demand that the vice president, as president of the U.S. Senate, send the voter list back to individual states for their legislatures to verify. Trump alleged widespread voter fraud – a charge that has since been repeatedly rejected by multiple courts.
According to Smith’s filing, after a Trump aide told the president that Pence’s safety was in danger, Trump responded, “So what?”
The Secret Service had to evacuate Pence and several members of Congress, fearing they would be physically attacked by the mob.
Meanwhile, Trump posted on what was then known as Twitter – and is now X: “Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set. facts, and not fraudulent or inaccurate facts that they were asked to certify beforehand. The United States demands the truth!
Trump spoke as a candidate, not as president
A central argument that Smith attempts to make in his filing is that when Trump addressed the large crowd he convened in Washington, D.C. on January 6, he did not speak as president of the United States. United but in his capacity as candidate of the Republican Party in the elections. 2020 election.
“He claimed that his ‘election victory’ had been ‘stolen,’ that he would not ‘concede,’ and that ‘with just three of the seven states in question, we win the presidency of the United States,'” notes the case.
The brief alleges that Trump used pronouns like “we” to address his voting base directly rather than all Americans, including those who did not vote for him.
“Finally, the defendant repeatedly made accusations against Biden, his main opponent in the election campaign, as well as against a candidate.”
The “digital breadcrumbs”
Prosecutors, in the filing, presented a “digital breadcrumbs” of Trump’s tweets and social media posts that they say unequivocally show his support for the attacks on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 — and since.
His tweets that day, Smith claims in the filing, were “not a message sent to address a matter of public interest and quell unrest; it was the message of an angry candidate when he realized he was going to lose power.”
Prosecutors also alleged that Trump actively observed the Capitol riots through Fox News and Twitter.
The brief states that Trump “sat in the dining room near the Oval Office, where he used his phone to check Twitter and watch television.”
“In the years following January 6,” the brief continues, “defendant reiterated his support and allegiance to the rioters who broke into the Capitol, calling them patriots and hostages, and providing them with a financial assistance.
Hatch Act and personnel managers
The Hatch Act, a law dating from 1939, prohibits public employees, while holding a federal office, from expressing support or opposition to a political party or candidate.
The filing alleges that Trump violated that law on Jan. 6, while plotting to overturn the election with certain aides, as well as in subsequent exchanges.
“Federal law confirms that the defendant’s campaign-related conversations with these White House staffers were unofficial,” Smith said. “The Hatch Act authorizes certain White House staff members to engage in political activities while carrying out their duties, but prohibits them from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or influence the outcome of an election.”
Trump’s response
In characteristic style, the former president denounced the dossier made public Wednesday on his social media platform, Truth Social.
“Democrats are weaponizing the Justice Department against me because they know I WIN, and they desperately want to support their failed candidate, Kamala Harris. The DOJ pushed back this latest ‘blockbuster job’ today because JD Vance humiliated Tim Walz last night at the debate,” Trump job defiantly, referring to the October 1 debate between his running mate Vance and Walz, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee.