Special counsel Jack Smith argued that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling does not cover Trump’s conduct that led to the four felony counts in the revised indictment. In a 165-page court filing unsealed Wednesday, federal prosecutors laid out their evidence against Donald Trump on four felony charges for his conduct leading up to and during his Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt. “This motion provides a comprehensive account of the defendant’s private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establish that none of the defendant’s charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or any presumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the government seeks, which is, at bottom, this: that the court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen,” special counsel Jack Smith wrote. The question of immunity became key thanks to a July Supreme Court ruling stating that all official acts done by a president are immune from prosecution, but left it to the trial court to determine whether Trump’s attempt to remain in power were “official.” “The answer to that question is no,” Smith argued. The filing was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the judge in the case. It can be read here.
via huff: Prosecutors Lay Out Evidence Against Trump In Jan. 6 In Now-Unsealed 165-Page Brief
siehe auch: Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing. A federal judge in Washington, DC, has released the most comprehensive narrative to date of the 2020 election conspiracy case against Donald Trump, outlining what special counsel Jack Smith describes as the former president’s “private criminal conduct.” The 165-page document comes from Smith’s office and is the fullest accounting yet of evidence in the election subversion case against Trump. Throughout the document, Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. That argument flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in July, which granted the former president sweeping immunity for official actions but left the door open for prosecutors to pursue Trump for unofficial steps he took. (…) Prosecutors say that Trump was told by advisers that the 2020 vote likely would not be finalized on Election Day and that he could misleadingly look ahead in the ballot count on election night only to fall behind once all of the ballots were counted. Nonetheless, Trump told his advisers that he would claim victory before the ballots were fully counted, prosecutors say. One private political adviser, three days before Election Day 2020, described Trump’s plan as: “He’s going to declare victory. That doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just going to say he’s the winner,” according to the filing. That adviser, not identified by name by prosecutors, also described the Democratic lean of the mail ballot vote “a natural disadvantage” and said “Trump’s going to take advantage of it. That’s our strategy.”
