Your daily adult tube feed all in one place!
Special Counsel Jack Smith files new indictment against Donald Trump in January 6 election interference case
Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a new slimmed-down version of his indictment against ex-President Donald Trump for alleged election interference in light of the Supreme Court's immunity decision.
The move comes after the Supreme Court in June granted the former president substantial immunity from prosecution for acts ‘core’ to his official duties.
The superseding indictment was returned by a new grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, which had not previously heard evidence in the case.
Prosecutors write that the fresh indictment 'reflects the government's efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court's holdings and remand instructions.'
It contains the same four core charges against the former president for trying to subvert the election: Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
But it is pared down to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained a new slimmed down version of his indictment against ex-President Donald Trump
For instance, it removes the allegations of how Trump allegedly sought to use the Justice Department in his efforts to overturn the election - which was explicitly mentioned in the Supreme Court's ruling as falling within his official duties.
The new filing states: 'The Defendant had no official responsibilities related to the certification proceeding, but he did have a personal interest as a candidate in being named the winner of the election.'
In addition, with the removal of some of the allegations covered under presidential immunity, accusations against 'Conspirator No. 4' have been dropped from the case.
That individual was widely known to be former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. Now there are five uncharged co-conspirators in the case rather than six with his removal.
The superseding indictment is 36 pages, while the original indictment was 45 pages.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that there are limits on charging January 6 rioters with obstruction, which also impacts former President Trump's 2020 federal election interference case.
The 6-3 decision split along the court's ideological lines ensures that Trump will not face another blockbuster trial before the November election with the case sent back to a lower court to determine what is considered his 'official' versus 'unofficial' acts.
'The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,' the justices led by Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority.
'But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.'
Trump celebrated the decision, writing on Truth Social at the time: 'Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!'
President Biden said the court had set ‘a dangerous precedent' after its monumental decision.
Roberts wrote in the opinion that Trump is also 'at least presumptively immune' from the allegations related to the 'pressure campaign' on former Vice President Mike Pence regarding the certification of the 2020 vote.
In addition, Trump is 'absolutely immune' from alleged misconduct during discussions with the Justice Department.
The 6-3 decision upended hundreds of cases stemming from the January 6 riot, including Donald Trump's election fraud trial
The superseding indictment is 36 pages, while the original indictment was 45 pages
The court's ruling makes it harder for January 6 defendants to be charged with obstructing an official proceeding - which carries up to 20 years in prison.
At least 152 people have been convicted of obstructing an official proceeding, according to the Associated Press.
In all, the charge has been brought against about 350 people accused of trying to prevent Congress certifying Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion, limited the 'obstruction of Congress' charge that has been used by the federal government to prosecute January 6 defendants.
Roberts called that law - which carries a 20-year prison sentence - 'one of the more severe potential punishments.'
A broad interpretation of the law 'would also criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists to decades in prison,' Roberts continued.
The three liberal justices dissented and raised concerns about what the decision means for democracy arguing the constitution does not 'shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts.'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: 'It makes a mockery of the principle that no man is above the law.'
She added that the president would become the 'most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world,' under the decision.
'Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune.'
'Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,' she wrote.
'Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent,' she concluded.
And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added in her dissent: 'The President is now a king above the law.'