Special Counsel Jack Smith laid out his most detailed case yet in a filing unsealed Wednesday for why Trump can still be prosecuted in spite of the Supreme Court’s capacious immunity decision.
It’s partly a dare to the Supreme Court, asking it — assuming the matter works its way up again from Judge Tanya Chutkan’s chambers to the high court — to outright declare that Trump’s effort to thwart the 2020 election formed part of his official duties.
In so doing, Smith gave a more precise and detailed account of key moments in which Trump allegedly violated the law.
Critically, Smith provided tighter evidence in three specific areas:
- Trump allegedly knew that he had lost the 2020 election and chose to fight anyway.
- The aim of the attempt to delay certification of the election on January 6 was for leverage to “negotiate” a Trump victory, diverging from the way in which the U.S. has picked a President for more than two centuries.
- Trump and those around him saw and used violence as a means of winning the post-election fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment