Ex-Prosecutor Explains Why Jack Smith’s Latest Move Will Backfire, End Up Helping Trump

A recently partially unsealed legal document crafted by Special Counsel Jack Smith presented his argument that former President Donald J. Trump can be prosecuted on federal charges related to alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. However, the document, a comprehensive 165-page evidence filing in Trump’s election fraud case, has been described as a “big win” for Trump’s legal team.

According to former prosecutor Joyce Vance, who spoke on the podcast “Stay Tuned With Preet Bharara,” the filing is advantageous for Trump as it reveals the identities of potential witnesses and provides insight into the structure of the case against him.

“This brief puts Trump’s team in a better position to respond, to make their own immunity arguments, and to prepare their case,” Vance said according to Newsweek. “This is, in fact, a win for Trump. And I guarantee you that nobody in the public who spent their time reading 165 pages in detail didn’t have their mind already made up about this election, right? The broad contours here, they are well known. This is not impacting the election.”

On the podcast, Vance and host Preet Bharara dove into their disagreement with the portrayal of Jack Smith’s evidence brief. Bharara acknowledged he doesn’t hold Smith in an overly exalted position, stating he doesn’t believe Smith “walks on water.” However, he challenged CNN’s Elie Honig’s criticism, who deemed the move unfair, and dismissed the notion that Smith is on an “obsessive quest” to target Trump. Instead, Bharara said that Smith’s actions are focused on achieving justice for the American public. Vance concurred, saying that Smith is diligently “keeping his head down.”

The 165-page filing, made public by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last week, extensively covers Trump’s actions, including phone calls, pressure campaigns, and litigation efforts in several key states like Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada.

According to Smith, Trump’s approach combined both direct and indirect methods, including pressuring state officials to address concerns about voter irregularities and filing lawsuits across several states to contest the election outcome. The document outlines how Trump’s allies, including attorneys and campaign staff, collaborated in these efforts. Smith highlights a call Trump made to Georgia’s Secretary of State, urging a thorough review of votes.

The motion also discusses how Trump’s legal team sought to address potential irregularities in voting machines and raised concerns about fraud. Even though various investigations and court rulings upheld the election results, Trump and his associates persisted, leveraging campaign infrastructure and encouraging state legislatures to consider alternative slates of electors. The document also details interactions where Trump’s team proposed assembling alternate electors in multiple states, aiming to present Vice President Mike Pence with grounds to review the electoral vote count on January 6, 2021.

The legal filing also presents a timeline showing how Trump’s actions unfolded over several months, leading to the events of January 6. The document contends that Trump’s efforts were outside the scope of presidential immunity, arguing they were part of his campaign activities rather than official presidential duties. It seeks a judgment confirming that these actions do not qualify for immunity, framing them as personal, political actions.