The US justice department filed a new indictment against Donald Trump on Tuesday over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The maneovre does not substantially change the criminal case against him but protects it in the wake of a July US supreme court decision ruling saying that Mr Trump and other presidents have immunity for official acts but not unofficial ones.
“Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment,” lawyers for Jack Smith, the special counsel handling the case, said in a filing that accompanied what is known as a superseding indictment.
“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v United States.”
US special counsel files new indictment against Trump over 2020 election
Donald Trump faces revised indictment of charges in 2020 election subversion case
Donald Trump adds RFK jnr and former Democratic congresswoman to election transition team
Janan Ganesh: Joe Biden understood the most important thing about the US’s decline
The document retains the same four criminal charges against Mr Trump that were originally filed last summer. But portions of the new indictment are rewritten to emphasise that Mr Trump was not acting in his official capacity during his efforts to try to overturn the election.
For example, the new document removes mention of Jeffrey Clark, a former justice department official who aided Mr Trump’s attempt to try to overturn the election. Mr Clark was the only government official who was listed as an unnamed co-conspirator in the original indictment.
The supreme court wrote in its July ruling the former president was “absolutely immune from prosecution” over his discussion with justice department officials, hence Mr Clark’s removal from the new indictment.
The supreme court also suggested a president could be criminally immune in connection to acts between him and the vice-president. The superseding indictment reframes Mr Trump’s interactions with Mike Pence, emphasising that he was Mr Trump’s running mate.
At other points in the document, prosecutors emphasise that Mr Trump was acting outside the scope of his official duties.
“The defendant had no official responsibilities related to any state’s certification of the election results,” the document says.
Prosecutors also highlighted that <r Trump used his Twitter/X account both for official and personal acts. They noted that the rally he attended on the Ellipse, near the White House, on January 6th, 2021, was a “campaign speech”.
Even if the case is still unlikely to go to trial before the 2024 election in November, and even if the Trump lawyers file motions seeking to excise more parts of the indictment, the decision to pursue a superseding indictment may have been to avoid more delay.
In response to the new indictment, Mr Trump railed against those responsible on Truth Social, declaring that it should be “dismissed immediately” and that “no Presidential Candidate, or Candidate for any Office, has ever had to put up with all of this Lawfare and Weaponization directly out of the Office of a Political Opponent”.
“The whole case should be thrown out and dismissed on Presidential Immunity grounds, as already ruled unequivocally by the U.S. Supreme Court,” he wrote in one of a series of posts, referencing the July US supreme court decision that said former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution.
He added in another: “What they are doing now is the single greatest sabotage of our Democracy in History.”
Mr Trump has been successful in delaying his criminal cases, which came as part of a broader strategy to push his legal troubles past November, in the hopes that he wins and can appoint a loyalist as the attorney general who would then drop the cases entirely.
In July, the supreme court’s conservative majority ruled that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official actions that extended to the “outer perimeter” of their office, most notably any interactions with the justice department and executive branch officials.
The framework of criminal accountability for presidents, as laid out by the ruling, has three categories: core presidential functions that carry absolute immunity, official acts of the presidency that carry presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts that carry no immunity.
The court also ruled the special counsel, Mr Smith, could not introduce as evidence at trial any acts deemed to be official, even as contextual information for jurors to show Mr Trump’s intent. – Guardian