On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump‘s federal election interference case, partly unsealed Department of Justice’s (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith‘s filing aimed at convincing Chutkan that the former president’s alleged offenses in the wake of the 2020 election are private, rather than official acts of office, and can therefore remain in his indictment.
Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, faces four felony counts in Smith’s case against him in Washington, D.C., after he allegedly tried to overturn President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory in the aftermath of his loss, which culminated in the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and claims the case is politically motivated.
One of the biggest bombshells against Trump revealed in Smith’s filing included details about a conversation the former president had with an unnamed White House aide, who on the day of the Capitol riot told Trump that the Secret Service and Capitol police had to move then-Vice Presidente Mike Pence into a secure location amid the insurrection.
Upon hearing that Pence could be in danger, Trump allegedly appeared apathetic to the news, and told the White House aide, “So what?”
Lara added: “You know, the January 6 situation has been amplified to a level that I don’t think is almost believable to so many people right now. The fact that this is coming to the forefront just speaks volumes about the fact that the Democrats probably don’t feel good about their candidate of Kamala Harris. This is not the main concern of the American people.”
Legal experts have called prosecutors’ evidence against Trump “pretty damning” ahead of November’s election. Other allegations revealed in Smith’s briefing include an incident in November 2020 when a Trump campaign staffer allegedly texted a Trump operative in Detroit while votes were still being tallied. The staffer reportedly texted, “Make them riot,” an apparent push to interrupt the vote count.
Co-chair of the Republican National Committee Lara Trump is seen in Milwaukee on July 16. Lara Trump said on Sunday that Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s briefing filed last week in former President Donald Trump’s election…
Co-chair of the Republican National Committee Lara Trump is seen in Milwaukee on July 16. Lara Trump said on Sunday that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s briefing filed last week in former President Donald Trump’s election fraud case was a “ridiculous ploy.”
More
PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images
Trump is also accused of telling his family members, including former first lady Melania Trump, his eldest daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, during a trip on the presidential helicopter Marine One that “it doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.” The conversation was allegedly overheard by a White House staffer who is willing to testify.
Newsweek reached out to Smith’s office and Trump’s campaign via email Sunday for comment.
The former president has called Smith’s briefing a “hit job.” In a series of posts to his Truth Social account last week, he also called Smith “deranged” and accused the DOJ of attempting to help Vice President Kamala Harris’ election bid in November.
Trump has stood by his claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud, despite providing no evidence. Earlier this year, the former president said he would only accept the 2024 election results “if everything’s honest.”
“If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country,” he said during an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel back in May.
Lara Trump echoed on Sunday that the former president will “of course” accept the election’s results “if he feels that this is a free, fair and transparent election.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s federal election trial will not begin until after November’s election as pre-trial proceedings continue. On Thursday, Chutkan gave Trump until November 7 to file his response to Smith’s new filing.
The reason that Smith filed his 165-page brief in the first place goes back to a U.S. Supreme Court decision on July 1 that former presidents have immunity for official acts conducted while in office but not for unofficial acts. The case was brought to the high court in a push from Trump to have the case thrown out. Smith, meanwhile, updated Trump’s original indictment, and a grand jury reindicted the former president last month.
The superseding indictment removes some specific allegations against Trump, but the former president is still charged with the same four counts from the original indictment filed in August 2023: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
Here’s a potential PAA (People Also Ask) question related to the developments in the case against Donald Trump:
The recent developments in the case against Donald Trump, particularly the unsealed filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith, raise crucial questions about the nature of presidential actions and accountability. One potential debate question could be:
“To what extent should actions taken by a sitting president, particularly in the context of potential election interference, be considered private rather than official acts of office?”
This question invites discussion on the implications of distinguishing between personal and official conduct within the highest level of government. Proponents of accountability might argue that any actions taken to undermine the democratic process, regardless of the context, should be subject to legal scrutiny. They might reference Smith’s filing, which alleges that Trump’s actions after the 2020 election—including his response to threats against Vice President Pence and the encouragement of his aides to incite unrest—are critical to understanding the gravity of the accusations against him [1[1[1[1[1[1[1[1].
Conversely, opponents might argue, as indicated by Lara Trump’s comments, that the prosecution’s case is politically motivated and serves to distract from broader electoral concerns, suggesting that the American public prioritizes different issues over past election disputes [1[1[1[1[1[1[1[1]. This raises questions about the role of the judiciary in political matters and whether legal actions against political figures can ever be truly impartial.
Engaging in this debate could lead to deeper explorations of the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the complexities inherent in prosecuting former heads of state.
Debate Question:
Debate Question:
Given the allegations revealed in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent filings, including claims that Donald Trump expressed indifference to the safety of then-Vice President Mike Pence during the Capitol riot and the encouragement of disturbances during vote tallies, to what extent should these incidents influence public perception of his character and candidacy for the presidency in 2024?
Context for Debate:
The discussion can explore various facets, including:
- Character Assessment: Should these allegations—particularly Trump’s alleged apathy towards Pence’s safety—impact voters’ views on his suitability to lead? How does this compare to past presidential candidates who faced similar scrutiny?
- Political Motives: Lara Trump and other allies assert that the charges are politically motivated, designed to undermine Trump’s campaign rather than reflect genuine concerns about his conduct. How should the public weigh these claims against the evidence presented by prosecutors?
- Impact on Democracy: Considering the alleged attempts to disrupt the democratic process (like the “Make them riot” text), what responsibilities do candidates have to respect electoral integrity? Is Trump’s behavior more concerning than other political scandals in recent history?
- Voter Sentiment: Ultimately, how may these revelations shape voter sentiment in the upcoming election? Will they galvanize Trump’s base, or will they deter undecided and moderate voters?
This multifaceted issue invites a vigorous debate on the intersection of personal conduct, political allegiance, and public trust in leadership.
