By William J. Furney
In an extensive new filing, special counsel Jack Smith has revealed the most detailed account yet of his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The 165-page legal document was unsealed by a federal judge this week and lays out a sweeping case against Trump, just weeks before he aims for another shot at the White House.
This latest filing, released by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, provides new insights into the inner workings of Trump’s efforts to hold onto power, despite losing the election to Joe Biden. It examines the president’s strained relationship with his then-vice president, Mike Pence, and uncovers the findings of FBI investigations into Trump’s phone activity on the infamous day of January 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the US Capitol.
Smith’s case, outlined in this legal brief, hinges on a crucial distinction between Trump’s actions as a political candidate and those as a sitting president. Smith argues that Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results were made in his capacity as a candidate, not as the leader of the nation. This, according to Smith, makes Trump ineligible for the protections usually granted to a sitting president.
“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office,” Smith wrote in the document. His argument positions Trump’s post-election actions as a private endeavour, one that involved campaign infrastructure and personal actors, far removed from his presidential duties.
This distinction is vital, particularly in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump certain legal immunities related to his official presidential actions. However, Smith argues that Trump’s scheme to cling to power was outside the realm of his official role, placing him squarely in the crosshairs of prosecution.
One of the most compelling revelations in the filing comes from the FBI’s forensic examination of Trump’s phone usage during the Capitol riots. The evidence paints a vivid picture of a president seemingly detached from the violence unfolding around him. According to Smith’s team, Trump was actively using social media applications, particularly Twitter, throughout the day, even after returning from his now-infamous speech at the Ellipse.
Three unnamed witnesses are prepared to testify that Trump spent much of the day in the White House dining room, with the television tuned to real-time news coverage of the riots. The prosecution aims to show that Trump was fully aware of the events as they unfolded, yet chose to continue posting incendiary comments online, including a tweet criticising Pence for lacking the “courage” to overturn the election results.
Smith’s legal team has framed a series of private conversations between Trump and Pence as discussions between “running mates,” rather than official presidential duties. In one such conversation, Pence allegedly told Trump that he should focus on his achievements with the Republican Party, rather than contesting the election outcome.
These conversations, according to Smith, had no bearing on any of Trump’s official responsibilities as president, and therefore do not qualify for immunity. The discussions focused solely on the pair’s joint electoral fate, further supporting the prosecution’s argument that Trump was acting in a personal, political capacity, not an official one.
Trump’s infamous tweet, posted at 2:24 p.m. on January 6, remains a key piece of evidence. In this tweet, Trump accused Pence of lacking the courage to block the certification of the electoral votes, which Smith’s team argues was a private act, driven by personal frustration rather than any official duty.
“At that point — alone, watching news in real time, and with knowledge that rioters had breached the Capitol building — the defendant issued the 2:24 p.m. Tweet attacking Pence,” Smith wrote. The filing asserts that Trump’s message was not an attempt to quell the unrest but rather to signal to his supporters that Pence had let him down.
This, Smith argues, was the act of “an angry candidate upon the realisation that he would lose power,” not a public figure seeking to restore order.
The filing also includes new testimony from a witness who claims to have overheard Trump aboard Marine One, telling his family, “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.” This comment, made in the presence of Trump’s wife Melania, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, is presented as further evidence that Trump was determined to hold onto power, regardless of the election’s outcome.
The witness, who is described as a senior official within Trump’s inner circle, is expected to testify that Trump’s fight to remain in power was not motivated by any legal or constitutional considerations, but rather by personal ambition.
Smith’s case against Trump is built around the idea that the former president’s actions were designed to “perpetuate himself in power,” a private effort that went beyond the scope of his official duties. “The executive branch has no authority or function to choose the next president,” prosecutors wrote, emphasising that Trump’s actions violated the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.
As the case moves forward, it promises to be one of the most high-profile legal battles in recent US history, with Trump’s fate — and the integrity of the nation’s electoral process — hanging in the balance.
* Image: File.