The Daily Populous Thursday October 3rd, 2024 morning edition
Authored by abcnews.go.com and submitted by mvanigan

Special counsel Jack Smith has outlined new details of former President Donald Trump and his allies' sweeping and "increasingly desperate" efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, in a blockbuster court filing Wednesday aimed at defending Smith's prosecution of Trump following the Supreme Court's July immunity ruling.

Trump intentionally lied to the public, state election officials, and his own vice president in an effort to cling to power after losing the election, while privately describing some of the claims of election fraud as "crazy," prosecutors alleged in the 165-page filing.

"When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office," the filing said. "With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost."

When Trump's effort to overturn the election through lawsuits and fraudulent electors failed to change the outcome of the election, prosecutors allege that the former president fomented violence, with prosecutors describing Trump as directly responsible for "the tinderbox that he purposely ignited on January 6."

"The defendant also knew that he had only one last hope to prevent Biden's certification as President: the large and angry crowd standing in front of him. So for more than an hour, the defendant delivered a speech designed to inflame his supporters and motivate them to march to the Capitol," Smith wrote.

The lengthy filing -- which includes an 80-page summary of the evidence gathered by investigators -- outlines multiple instances in which Trump allegedly heard from advisers who disproved his allegations, yet continued to spread his claims of outcome-determinative voter fraud, prosecutors said.

"It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell," Trump allegedly told members of his family following the 2020 election, the filing said.

In this July 31, 2024, file photo, Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump waits on stage to speak at a campaign rally, in Harrisburg, Pa. Alex Brandon/AP, FILE

In a statement, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said the release of the filing was an attempt to interfere with the upcoming election following Tuesday's vice presidential debate.

"This entire case is a partisan, Unconstitutional Witch Hunt that should be dismissed entirely," Cheung said.

In her order allowing the redacted filing to become public, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has been overseeing the case, addressed the defense's accusations of partisan bias.

"Defendant's opposition brief repeatedly accuses the Government of bad-faith partisan bias," the judge wrote. "These accusations, for which Defendant provides no support, continue a pattern of defense filings focusing on political rhetoric rather than addressing the legal issues at hand."

"Not only is that focus unresponsive and unhelpful to the court, but it is also unbefitting of experienced defense counsel and undermining of the judicial proceedings in this case," Judge Chutkan wrote. "Future filings should be directed to the issues before the court."

According to prosecutors, Trump "laid the groundwork for his crimes well before" 2020's Election Day, including by sowing doubt among his supporters and planning to declare victory immediately, despite multiple advisers telling him that the results were unlikely to be finalized on Election Day.

Prosecutors allege that Trump and his allies "sought to create chaos" at polling places -- including one instance when a campaign employee encouraged a colleague to "make them riot" at an ongoing vote count in Detroit -- which the former president later used to support his claims of voter fraud.

"The throughline of these efforts was deceit: the defendant's and co-conspirators' knowingly false claims of election fraud," the filing said.

In addition to outlining the instances when Trump was directly corrected about his allegations of voter fraud, the filing said Trump privately called allegations of voter fraud made by his lawyer Sidney Powell as "crazy" -- despite employing similar arguments to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, prosecutors allege.

Trump last year pleaded not guilty to federal charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election in order to remain in power. Wednesday's filing comes at a pivotal moment in the case, as Judge Chutkan is set to begin considering whether any of the allegations included in the government's case are protected by presidential immunity after the Supreme Court ruled in a blockbuster decision that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office.

In August, Smith filed a pared-down indictment that removed allegations likely to have been considered official acts -- including Trump's interactions with Justice Department officials to interfere with the election -- while still charging the former president with the same four criminal counts he originally faced. Last week, Smith filed a sealed brief seeking to justify the superseding indictment, then sought to file a redacted version for public release.

Trump's lawyers opposed Wednesday's lengthy filing -- which they described as "tantamount to a premature and improper Special Counsel report" -- and argued that public release of the allegations would improperly influence the election and violate Department of Justice policies. Judge Chutkan -- who has long stated that the election does not play a factor in her decision making -- ordered the filing be publicly released Wednesday.

In justifying his case against Trump, Smith alleged that Trump acted as an office-seeker rather than an officeholder when he committed crimes, and that he "must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen."

"Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one," Wednesday's filing said.

HunterDude54 on October 2nd, 2024 at 20:15 UTC »

.. From the filing paper

> Where the defendant was acting “as office-seeker, not office-holder,” no immunity attaches.

This is the crux of the revision. I think success first hinges on this getting accepted.

troubadoursmith on October 2nd, 2024 at 19:50 UTC »

PDF warning - but here's a direct link to the newly unsealed filing.

Edit - off to a mighty strong start.

> The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted—a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role. In Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024), the Supreme Court held that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain official conduct—including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme, as was alleged in the original indictment—and remanded to this Court to determine whether the remaining allegations against the defendant are immunized. The answer to that question is no. This motion provides a comprehensive account of the defendant’s private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establish that none of the defendant’s charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or any presumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the Government seeks, which is, at bottom, this: that the Court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen.

AntonioS3 on October 2nd, 2024 at 19:46 UTC »

All of a sudden Vance's nonanswer in the debate looks like very bad timing now, lmfao.