Special Counsel Claims Trump Committed ‘Private Crimes’ in Efforts to Retain Power: What This Means for His Future
Special Counsel Jack Smith has launched federal prosecution on election interference charges against former President Donald Trump, publishing a detailed 165-page roadmap outlining allegations that Trump engaged in illegal activity to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election.
This broad filing, made public in a D.C. trial court, justifies the case against Trump, even in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision broadly shielding presidents from any actions that can be linked to constitutional duties.
Smith’s team argues that by its very nature, Trump’s alleged scheme was private and therefore not beyond prosecution.
Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges and branded the prosecution as a partisan effort, citing the filing is full of falsehoods. A spokesperson for Trump, Steven Cheung, cited the court document as a “partisan, Unconstitutional Witch Hunt,” requested dismissal, and all other Democrat-led investigations.
Major Highlights from the Filing
1. “You still have to fight like hell”:
Prosecutors say that aboard Marine One on Election Day, Donald Trump allegedly told his family that the result did not matter and that they must “fight like hell” to retain power, an overheard remark.
White House aide that prosecutors say is a private indication of Trump’s determination to keep the reins regardless of what happens at the ballot box. His lawyers say this was the mentality of a candidate, not a president.
2. “0-32 on our cases”:
In December 2020, Trump amplified false claims to have been made by election workers in Georgia of having engaged in misconduct by tabulating fraudulent votes at State Farm Arena. Trump continued to push these narratives although told by his campaign staff that all his claims were unfounded.
Internal campaign communications by Trump’s team reveal exasperation at their own repeated legal defeats: “I’m amazed at how we still can’t find a case in which Trump didn’t make a thing worse,” an adviser complained about the “0-32” record in cases before the courts, blasting use of baseless conspiracy theories. 3. “So what?
On January 6, after the rioters egged on by Trump’s incendiary Twitter post had stormed the Capitol, an aide nonetheless told Trump that Pence was in danger.
Trump answered with a dismissive “So what?” Prosecutors point to this as an example of how his conduct was motivated by a need to stay in the race rather than discharge the duties of the presidency.
4. An “honest assessment”:
Those around him, lawyers and close allies, repeatedly counselled him that his fraud claims weren’t likely to survive in court. In one noted exchange in the filing, Trump waved off their concerns, saying, “The facts don’t matter.”
This callousness about the factual basis of his claims is the same note of determination to challenge the election outcome irrespective of reality.
5. Bill Barr speaking out:
On November 29, 2020, former Attorney General Bill Barr publicly contradicted assertions by Trump of election fraud, saying the Justice Department had found no evidence of such wide-ranging irregularities that could alter the course of the election.
This public rebuke prompted Trump’s legal team, led by lawyer Rudy Giuliani, to criticize Barr for attacking the campaign’s narrative.
6. Victory no matter what:
In a bid to prepare for what by every indication would likely prove to be a very close election, Trump and his strategists had a plan: declare victory no matter what the realities of the day.
It was well-espoused just days prior to the election, as reported when a political adviser told supporters that Trump would merely “declare victory.” And that is exactly what Trump did after the election, declaring himself the winner, even as votes continued to be counted.
The claims Special Counsel Jack Smith draws out paint a troubling picture of a former president who, having lost the 2020 election, might have resorted to a series of dubious and potentially illegal acts to maintain political power.
It’s in the roadmap, though, where this filing reveals internal discussions and communications that suggest Trump knew the weakness of his claims but pursued them aggressively.
Consequences for Trump and also for the wider political environment will be profound.
This case may set a precedent about how former presidents are held to account and to what extent presidential immunity applies.
These developments will likely bleed into voter sentiment going into 2024 elections as well as into the strategies that both major political parties will assume.
The outcome would be able to go a long way not only to redefine Trump’s political future but also to redefine the boundaries of acceptable conduct in U.S. politics.
