On Tuesday, August 27, the United States Special Prosecutor Jack Smith submitted a new indictment in the case involving former President Trump and the January 6th election.
Smith is the Special Prosecutor appointed by the Department of Justice to oversee the 2020 U.S. election interference case, commonly known as the January 6th case. This is his latest move following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump is not immune to criminal prosecution as a former president.
In the filing submitted by the Special Prosecutor’s Office on Tuesday, it stated, “Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia announced an alternative indictment accusing the defendant of the same criminal offenses as those alleged in the original indictment.”
“This alternative indictment was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflecting the government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States and the remand for retrial,” the document added.
In July, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents and former presidents are immune from prosecution in core presidential actions and enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts.
Moreover, the Supreme Court remanded the ongoing January 6th case back to the lower courts, requesting the lower courts to determine which actions constitute “official” behavior.
The alternative indictment reduced from 45 pages to 36 pages, removing some accusations related to Trump’s interactions with the Department of Justice, narrowing the scope of charges against the former president.
The indictment no longer lists former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as a conspirator. Neither indictment specifically names Trump’s co-conspirators, but their identities have been confirmed through public records and other means.
Smith did not drop any charges against Trump; the original four charges remain in the alternative indictment. Prosecutors still accuse Trump of conspiring to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to impede an official proceeding, and obstruction of an official proceeding.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all four charges. In response, he stated on his social media platform, “Smith has brought a ridiculous new indictment against me, having the same problems as the old one,” calling it an attempt to revive a “dead” political persecution.
In the Trump v. United States case, the majority of Supreme Court justices agreed that a president’s immunity from criminal prosecution is multi-faceted: absolute immunity for actions within their indisputable constitutional authority, presumptive immunity for official actions, and no immunity for unofficial acts.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion divided the prosecutor’s charges into three categories: charges surrounding Trump’s interactions with the Department of Justice, communications with state electors, and his actions on January 6, 2021; charges related to urging then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election results in the Senate.
Trump enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for the first category of charges. For the second category, the Supreme Court remanded the issue to the U.S. District Court handling the case to determine if the former president’s actions were official business. Communications between Trump and Pence fall under “presumptive immunity,” which prosecutors can challenge in court.
The Special Prosecutor and Trump’s legal team are likely to submit briefs to Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is responsible for overseeing this case, presenting their arguments on which charges in the indictment should be withdrawn or retained.
The Supreme Court has tasked this U.S. District Judge with analyzing Trump’s actions and determining which of the behavior under scrutiny are official and unofficial.
A status hearing has been scheduled, with Chutkan setting it for September 5.
Smith’s revision of the indictment on Tuesday evening has stirred some legal circles’ attention, as the Department of Justice manual clearly states that prosecutors should avoid actions “intended to influence any election, or to give an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
Traditionally, the Department of Justice has interpreted this provision as prohibiting the filing of charges or executing public investigative steps within 60 days after an election. Conservative voices pointed out on Tuesday evening that early voting for the 2024 election will commence, in states like Minnesota and South Dakota, on September 20, with less than a month to go and within the 60-day window.
Former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer and Founding Member of the Third Branch Project, Mike Davis, believes that Smith knew the likelihood of a trial against Trump before the November election is slim, and the modified indictment is designed to prompt unfavorable actions against Trump before the election day.
Smith’s team denied any political motives and stated that the cases were initiated before the beginning of the 2024 election season. If charges were brought outside of the election season, the Department of Justice manual would not obstruct the trial from commencing.
Retired federal Judge John Jones told The Wall Street Journal that Smith’s goal is to avoid further deadlock in the case by revising the indictment and initiating a new lawsuit, saying, “He has actually taken a step ahead.”
Jones is currently the President of Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
James Burnham, a former senior official at the Justice Department under the Trump administration, expressed concerns that Smith’s team has defied the spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling, potentially leading to another rejection from the justices.
“I think they will keep hitting a wall until they finally break through,” Burnham told Huariai. “They haven’t truly reshaped the case in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision but rather attempted surface changes.”
This article contains references from the English Epoch Times report.