Former President Donald Trump is now confronting revised charges related to his alleged attempts to interfere in the 2020 presidential election, following a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court had previously ruled that presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed while in office.
The updated indictment, issued by Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith, retains the original four criminal counts against Trump: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. However, these charges are now framed in the context of Trump’s status as a political candidate rather than as a sitting president.
The charges stem from Trump’s actions after losing to Joe Biden, including his persistent claims of widespread voter fraud, which he has yet to substantiate with evidence. The indictment reflects the Supreme Court’s decision by removing any claims related to Trump’s attempts to coerce Justice Department officials, as the Court deemed such actions not illegal under presidential immunity.
The modified indictment, reduced from 45 to 36 pages, revises the language and specifics of the allegations to align with the Court’s ruling. For instance, it now describes Trump’s involvement in election-related actions as that of a private citizen rather than a president. This adjustment is aimed at addressing the Supreme Court’s concerns about presidential immunity while maintaining the essence of the charges.
Additionally, the revised indictment appears to have dropped charges against Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official involved in the fake electors scheme. This scheme, aimed at disrupting the Electoral College process, involved attempts to persuade state legislatures to either select Republican electors or withhold naming electors in states Biden won.
Despite these revisions, Trump’s legal team remains steadfast in their denial of the charges. Todd Blanche, Trump’s personal lawyer, referred inquiries to the Trump campaign, which did not respond to requests for comment. Trump himself dismissed the updated indictment as an effort to resuscitate a “dead” investigation and distract the public from the upcoming election, calling for its immediate dismissal.
A source close to Trump’s legal team expressed that the revised indictment was anticipated and did not alter their position on the case’s merits. The source suggested that the new indictment merely reflects the government’s response to the Supreme Court ruling and maintains that the case is fundamentally flawed.
The special counsel’s office explained that the new grand jury, which had not previously reviewed evidence in the case, was presented with the updated indictment. This grand jury’s role is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution.
The revised indictment clarifies that Trump’s actions were undertaken as a candidate, not in his official capacity as president. This adjustment is intended to align with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which emphasized that official acts of a president might be protected under immunity.
The updated charges do not necessarily expedite the case. Constitutional law expert Daniel Charles Richman of Columbia Law School noted that the new indictment’s adherence to the Supreme Court’s ruling still leaves uncertainty about whether it will meet the Court’s standards for presidential immunity. He also expressed doubt that the case would be resolved before the election, given the expected delays and the need for Trump’s legal team to prepare.
In addition to the election interference case, Trump’s legal challenges include a separate case involving the retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Special Counsel Smith’s team has appealed a Florida judge’s decision to dismiss this case, arguing that the judge’s ruling deviated from Supreme Court precedents and misinterpreted the statutes governing special counsel appointments.
As the legal battles unfold, Trump’s potential victory in the upcoming election could influence the future of these cases. If he wins against Democrat Kamala Harris, Trump is anticipated to direct the Justice Department to dismiss the federal charges he faces.