CNN
—
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has released the most comprehensive argument yet in the 2020 election conspiracy case against Donald Trump, ruling out what special counsel Jack Smith described as the former president’s “private criminal conduct.” Outlined.
The 165-page document was provided by Smith’s office and is the most complete account to date of the evidence in the election destruction case against Trump.
Throughout the document, Smith argues that the actions President Trump took to overturn the election were taken in his personal capacity as a candidate, not in his official capacity as president. The argument stems from a July Supreme Court ruling that granted the former president full immunity for official actions but left open the possibility for prosecutors to pursue Mr. Trump for unofficial actions. is.
“In essence, defendant’s plan was personal,” prosecutors wrote in their motion. “He acted as a candidate in his private capacity, making extensive use of civilian and campaign infrastructure in an effort to overturn the election results.”
The filing includes what prominent witnesses told a federal grand jury and the FBI about Trump, as well as other undisclosed evidence investigators have collected about the former president’s actions up to and after January 6, 2021. Their testimonies are summarized.
The release of the previously sealed motion comes even as the former president seeks re-election to a second term in a close race against the vice president, citing Trump’s actions to overturn the 2020 election. It’s the latest major development in Smith’s years-long effort to prosecute him. Kamala Harris. The case has already reached the Supreme Court once, but has been delayed multiple times with President Trump trying to delay prosecution until after next month’s election.
This document is divided into four sections. The first section describes the case that the prosecutor says he or she intends to prove at trial, including a summary of the evidence. The second section provides U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan with a roadmap for how to evaluate which lawsuits are official and therefore potentially subject to immunity, and which are not. are. The third section explains how the principles should be applied in Trump’s case. The fourth is a short conclusion asking Chutkan to rule that the actions described are not protected by immunity and that Trump “will be tried on a priority indictment basis.”
Trump campaign spokesman Stephen Chan said in a statement provided to CNN after the former president’s team fought to have the documents unsealed that Smith’s story is “full of lies” and “unconstitutional.” said.
“Deranged Jack Smith and the radical Democrats in Washington, D.C., are hell-bent on weaponizing the Justice Department to hang on to power. President Trump is in the ascendancy, and radical Democrats across the deep state are dismayed. “This entire incident is a partisan, unconstitutional witch hunt and should be dismissed in its entirety, along with all the rest of the Democratic Party’s fabrications,” Chan said.
Prosecutors described efforts by Trump operatives to “spark chaos” in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, when the vote appeared to be going to Joe Biden.
In Philadelphia, prosecutors said canvassers tried to provoke confrontations at polling places and then “falsely claimed that election observers were being denied proper access” as a pretext for claiming fraud. claims to have done so.
Prosecutors also cited the disturbance at the Detroit counting center, in which election staffers who learned that a large number of votes were leaning toward Biden asked for “the option of filing a lawsuit,” even if it meant “legal action.” He pointed to evidence that it was. ”
The same campaign operatives were told that protests at counting centers were heading in the direction of the so-called Brooks Brothers riots that disrupted the 2000 Florida tallies for Al Gore and George W. Bush. When confronted, he said, “Let’s start a riot.”
Facing a high bar to introduce evidence on former Vice President Mike Pence, Smith’s team sought to do so by framing a series of interactions between the two as conversations between “running mates” and Pence. He tried to convince Trump that he needed to accept. his election defeat;
They include a conversation on November 7, 2020, in which Mr. Pence allegedly told Mr. Trump, “We should focus on how to revive the Republican Party,” and a conversation in which Mr. Trump was asked about the prospect of an election challenge. Includes Pence’s recollections of his meetings with Trump campaign staff. It looked dark.
According to prosecutors, Mr. Pence told Mr. Trump at a luncheon on November 12 that there was no need for him to make concessions, but that “we can recognize that the process is over,” and in a telephone conversation on November 23, Mr. Trump said that Mr. One of his lawyers reportedly told Pence he was skeptical. Regarding election issues.
Prosecutors say that as part of these private conversations, Mr. Pence “attempted to promote” Mr. Trump as a friend after news networks announced Mr. Biden’s election victory. In other conversations, Pence encouraged Trump to consider running for re-election in 2024. Prosecutors argued that these communications had nothing to do with Trump’s official duties as president.
“The content of the conversations at issue, including the fate of the joint election between Defendants and Mr. Pence and their acceptance of the results, has nothing to do with the functioning of the executive branch,” they wrote in their filing. are.
According to prosecutors, Mr. Trump was told by his advisers that the 2020 vote would likely not be finalized on Election Day, and that he mistakenly pre-read the results on election night and that the results were delayed after all votes had been counted. He was told that there was a possibility that he would end up in the hospital. Nevertheless, prosecutors say Trump told advisers he intended to claim victory before the votes were counted.
A private political consultant described President Trump’s plan three days before the 2020 election: That doesn’t mean he’s a winner, he just wants to say he’s a winner,” the filing states.
The adviser, who prosecutors have not named, also said Democrats’ advantage in mail-in voting is a “natural disadvantage” and that “Trump is going to take advantage of that.” That’s our strategy. ”
Smith’s office emphasized the personal and political nature of Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election.
“The executive branch has no authority or function to choose the next president,” prosecutors wrote.
This argument appeared intended for federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, which in recent years has emphasized a historical understanding of the separation of powers.
In other words, Trump’s efforts to overturn the election were necessarily private, Smith argues, because the Constitution does not give the president formal authority to choose his successor.
“Defendant’s charged conduct is in direct violation of these fundamental principles,” the motion reads. “He sought to usurp the powers specifically assigned to other departments by the Constitution in order to advance his own interests and perpetuate his own power, against the will of the people.”
In their filing, prosecutors place particular emphasis on what President Trump learned from White House officials mentioned in the filing.
“P9” is trying to show that President Trump was fully aware that he had lost the election as he pursued a plan to reverse the election.
The person, identified only as “P9,” appears to have privately discussed the spoof elector strategy with President Trump and others in his campaign about how “insane” or “illegal” the strategy is. They seemed to be having repeated conversations over text. ” according to the filing.
When Mr. Trump told his staff that the private lawyer leading the legal challenge would not be paid unless the case was successful, the staffer told Mr. Trump that the private lawyer would not be paid. This prompted a laugh from Trump, who responded, “We’ll see,” the filing said. (The private attorney has been identified by prosecutors as Co-conspirator 1 and was previously identified by CNN as Rudy Giuliani.)
In a subsequent conversation, White House officials told Trump that Giuliani’s false claims could not be proven in court, and Trump told staffers that “the details don’t matter.”
The brief describes several other communications between White House officials and Trump in which the president was told that his claims of election fraud would not stand up in court.
In filings released Wednesday, prosecutors identified witnesses they hope to call at trial to testify against Trump, including election officials in battleground states and This includes the White House deputy chief of staff.
Prosecutors also told jurors President Trump’s campaign speech on January 4, 2021 in Georgia and on the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, shortly before the riot at the U.S. Capitol. I would like to publish it to the public.
And even though he knew there was no information disseminated widely enough to overturn Trump’s loss, jurors heard a tweet claiming he could prove Trump was publicly promoting fraud in the election. He wants to show it to others. They claim the tweets were not part of Trump’s official business as president.
At trial, prosecutors testified that Trump, the only person with access to Trump’s Twitter account, had tweeted on January 6, 2021, putting pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence. He wants to call an advisor. The counting of electoral votes at the Capitol. This person is said to be the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.
“At trial, the government learned from Person 45 that he was the only person other than defendant who could post to defendant’s Twitter account, that he sent tweets only at defendant’s express direction, and that Person 45 “It would bring out that he did not send information on specific tweets” – specifically, the tweets that Trump sent saying Pence did not have the courage to block the certification of the vote.
This type of testimony allows prosecutors to argue in court that they have instant evidence of:
“At 2:24 p.m., Mr. Trump was alone in his dining room,” prosecutors wrote in their filing. “Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Pence and tweeted an incitement to the ongoing riot. ‘Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what needed to be done.’ This was done to protect our country and our Constitution.” The United States is demanding the truth, not the fraudulent or inaccurate facts it was previously required to prove.
Smith is once again using the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities of federal employees, to strengthen charges against former President Donald Trump of subverting the 2020 election.
Prosecutors said in a new filing that the Hatch Act allows White House staff to “wear two hats,” distinguishing between official acts that serve the public and political acts that support candidates. Ta.
So even though some of Trump’s misconduct occurred on White House grounds or in front of White House staff, it falls under the “political” umbrella and therefore does not give him immunity. writes Smith’s team.
Prosecutors said, “When the defendant’s White House staff members participated in political activities on his behalf as a candidate, they did not exercise their official authority or fulfill their official responsibilities.” “And when the President engaged in campaign-related activities with or in the presence of these officials as a candidate, he also was not engaged in official conduct as President.”
This story has been updated with additional developments.