A federal judge in Washington, DC, has unveiled the most detailed account to date regarding the 2020 election conspiracy case against former President Donald Trump. This 165-page document, prepared by special counsel Jack Smith’s office, presents a comprehensive overview of the evidence related to the alleged efforts by Trump to overturn the election results.
Throughout the narrative, Smith emphasizes that Trump’s actions aimed at reversing the election outcome were undertaken in his capacity as a private candidate, rather than as the sitting president. This distinction is critical, especially following a Supreme Court ruling in July that granted Trump broad immunity for actions taken in his official capacity but left the door open for prosecutors to hold him accountable for unofficial conduct.
The document argues, “At its core, the defendant’s scheme was a private one.” It outlines how Trump engaged various private actors and utilized his campaign infrastructure to attempt to change the election results while acting privately as a candidate.
The filing incorporates testimonies from prominent witnesses who appeared before a federal grand jury, as well as insights from the FBI regarding Trump’s actions in the lead-up to and on January 6, 2021. The release of this motion, previously sealed, marks a significant step in Smith’s ongoing efforts to prosecute Trump for actions surrounding the 2020 election as he vies for a second term amidst a competitive race against Vice President Kamala Harris.
The document is structured into four main sections. The first provides an outline of the case prosecutors intend to present at trial, including a summary of the evidence. The second section offers guidance to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on determining which of Trump’s actions may be considered official and potentially protected by immunity. The third section applies these principles specifically to Trump’s situation, while the fourth section concludes with a request for Chutkan to rule that Trump’s actions are not immune from prosecution, making him subject to trial based on the superseding indictment.
Prosecutors illustrate that Trump’s campaign operatives aimed to “create chaos” immediately following the 2020 election, particularly when results began leaning in favor of Joe Biden. They allege that in Philadelphia, Trump’s team attempted to instigate confrontations at polling locations, falsely claiming that their election observers were being denied access—a tactic used to allege fraud. Additionally, they pointed to events at the Detroit Counting Center, noting that upon hearing a batch of votes favoring Biden, a campaign staffer sought “options to file litigation” regardless of their merit. This operative reportedly suggested, “make them riot,” in reference to potential protests at the counting center, drawing parallels to the disruptions experienced during the 2000 Florida recount.
In terms of messaging strategy, prosecutors assert that Trump was advised before the election that results might not be finalized on Election Day. Despite this, he expressed intent to claim victory prematurely, regardless of the counting process. A private adviser noted Trump’s plan to declare victory without regard to actual election outcomes, highlighting a calculated approach to exploit perceived advantages in the vote count.
Smith’s office stresses the political nature of Trump’s actions throughout the election period. The prosecutors argue that the executive branch lacks the authority to select the next president, a point made to emphasize that Trump’s conduct was inherently private and thus should not be shielded by presidential immunity. They contend that Trump’s actions not only contradicted constitutional principles but also represented a self-serving attempt to maintain power against the public’s will.
The filing draws particular attention to insights from a White House staffer referred to as “P9.” This staffer allegedly had significant discussions regarding strategies to utilize fake electors and communicated that many of Trump’s plans were “crazy” or “illegal.” Notably, when Trump mentioned withholding payment from a private lawyer leading his legal challenges, P9 responded that the attorney would never see payment, eliciting a dismissive “we’ll see” from Trump. Further conversations indicated that even the lawyer would struggle to substantiate claims of election fraud in court, to which Trump reportedly replied, “The details don’t matter.”
As the prosecution prepares for trial, they have identified key witnesses, including election officials from battleground states and Trump’s deputy chief of staff. They plan to showcase Trump’s campaign speeches delivered on January 4, 2021, in Georgia and at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, shortly before the Capitol riot. The prosecution intends to use Trump’s tweets as evidence of his public promotion of unfounded fraud claims, asserting that he knew such claims lacked sufficient substance to alter the election outcome. Importantly, they assert that these tweets were not part of Trump’s official presidential duties.
Furthermore, the prosecution aims to bring forth testimony from a key adviser who had exclusive access to Trump’s Twitter account. This testimony would confirm that tweets during the Capitol riot, including one that criticized Vice President Mike Pence, were sent at Trump’s direction. The prosecution notes that these communications can help establish a timeline of events, asserting that Trump’s actions contributed to the chaotic atmosphere surrounding the Capitol on January 6.
Lastly, Smith’s office is leveraging the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities of federal employees, to fortify their charges against Trump. They argue that even if some of Trump’s alleged misconduct took place on White House grounds, it fell under the political umbrella and thus he should not be granted immunity. The prosecution asserts, “When the defendant’s White House staff participated in political activity on his behalf as a candidate, they were not exercising their official authority.”
This comprehensive filing sheds light on the intricate details of the case against Trump, offering a glimpse into the prosecution’s strategy as they seek to hold him accountable for his actions surrounding the 2020 election. As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of this case will resonate far beyond the courtroom, affecting the political landscape as Trump continues his campaign for the presidency.
