Prosecutors lay out new evidence in Trump election case, accuse him of having ‘resorted to crimes’

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump laid the groundwork to try to overturn the 2020 election even before he lost, knowingly pushed false claims of voter fraud and “resorted to crimes” in his failed bid to cling to power, according to a newly unsealed court filing from prosecutors that lays out fresh details from the landmark criminal case against the former president.

The filing from special counsel Jack Smith’s team offers the most comprehensive view to date of what prosecutors intend to prove if the case charging Trump with conspiring to overturn the election reaches trial. Though a months-long congressional investigation and the indictment itself have chronicled in stark detail Trump’s efforts to undo the election, the new filing cites previously unknown accounts offered by Trump’s closest aides to paint a portrait of an “increasingly desperate” president who while losing his grip on the White House “used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process.”

“So what?” the filing quotes Trump as telling an aide after being alerted that his vice president, Mike Pence, was in potential danger after a crowd of violent supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The details don’t matter,” Trump said, when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn’t be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.

The filing was submitted, initially under seal, following a Supreme Court opinion that conferred broad immunity on former presidents for official acts they take in office, narrowing the scope of the prosecution charging Trump with conspiring to overturn the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

The purpose of the brief is to convince U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the offenses charged in the indictment are private, rather than official, acts and can therefore remain part of the indictment as the case moves forward. Chutkan permitted a redacted version to be made public.

“Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one,” Smith’s team wrote, adding, “When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.”

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung called the brief “falsehood-ridden” and “unconstitutional” and repeated oft-stated allegations that Smith and Democrats were “hell-bent on weaponizing the Justice Department in an attempt to cling to power.”

“The release of the falsehood-ridden, Unconstitutional J6 brief immediately following Tim Walz’s disastrous debate performance is another obvious attempt by the Harris-Biden regime to undermine American Democracy and interfere in this election.”

The filing includes details of conversations between Trump and Pence, including a private lunch the two had on Nov. 12, 2020, in which Pence “reiterated a face-saving option” for Trump, telling him, “don’t concede but recognize the process is over,” according to prosecutors.

In another private lunch days later, Pence urged Trump to accept the results of the election and run again in 2024.

“I don’t know, 2024 is so far off,” Trump told him, according to the filing.

But Trump “disregarded” Pence “in the same way he disregarded dozens of court decisions that unanimously rejected his and his allies’ legal claims, and that he disregarded officials in the targeted states — including those in his own party — who stated publicly that he had lost and that his specific fraud allegations were false,” prosecutors wrote.

Trump’s “steady stream of disinformation” in the weeks after the election culminated in his speech at the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021, in which Trump “used these lies to inflame and motivate the large and angry crowd of his supporters to march to the Capitol and disrupt the certification proceeding,” prosecutors wrote.

Related articles

MAGA lawmaker claims Venezuela is giving nuclear material to Hamas in bizarre rant



Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) raised eyebrows on Fox Business Tuesday when she endorsed a U.S. invasion of Venezuela — but then she took it a step further, telling anchor David Asman, with no evidence, that Venezuela is "giving uranium" to hostile foreign powers and terrorist groups.

"This is going to be a very major success story, not only for [the Venezuelan people], but for us," said Salazar. "And I salute President Trump for having the fortitude, the courage, the political vision to be doing this. Because [Nicolas] Maduro is the head of a transnational criminal organization. Maduro is not the legitimate president of the country, so we're not invading a sovereign country that has a free and fair elected democratic president. No. This guy is a thug."

"And he's good friends with Hezbollah, and they're giving uranium to Hamas and to Iran and to North Korea and to Cuba and to Nicaragua," she continued. "Come on. It's time for the United States to do what we need to do. And thank god that Trump is doing it."

She went on to say Venezuela has "the largest reserves of oil in the world" and it'll be a "windfall" for America.

While Venezuela does have speculated uranium reserves, and the Iranian government helped carry out exploratory operations in 2009, there is no evidence that Venezuela is even currently mining uranium, let alone exporting it to any of the countries or groups Salazar mentioned.

Despite the questionable uranium claims, Venezuela has seen extreme economic and political repression under Nicolás Maduro, who has assumed the presidency for multiple terms by banning key opposition leaders and holding sham elections. Millions of people have fled the country to escape hyperinflation, hunger, and authoritarian policies.

The United States has sanctioned the Maduro regime for years under presidents from both parties, but Trump has escalated, with not just harsh new sanctions, but reportedly plans for attacks on military assets under the guise of drug strikes.

‘Expensive illusion’: Writer warns MAGA policies are ‘crippling local economies’



A former Biden administration official and human rights expert warned Wednesday that harmful MAGA immigration policies have crippled struggling local economies — further damaging Americans.

Michelle Brané, a non-resident fellow at the Cornell Law Migration and Human Rights Program and the executive director of Together and Free, wrote in a Newsweek opinion piece that immigrants working legally have been pulled off job sites, costing them and their employers thousands of dollars fighting legal battles they shouldn't have to.

Brané, who served as the immigration detention ombudsman for the Biden administration and the executive director of the Family Reunification Task Force, shared a story of Jaime in New York, who was detained for almost two months despite showing his work permit. Jaime was pulled from a job during an ICE raid where dozens were arrested.

"Jaime’s detention also harmed his employer, a family-owned business," Brané wrote. "After the raid, the company was forced to reduce output to 25 percent of capacity and could not fulfill orders. In communities already struggling with labor shortages, raids cripple local economies."

Jaime was flown to Texas, where it cost him thousands to fight the legal battle — all because bond wasn't an option for him.

"The almost two months he spent in detention took an enormous emotional toll on him, his family and his community. It also imposed a steep financial burden to taxpayers, local governments and private businesses," she said.

Jaime also had to deal with a "clogged immigration system." Before the detention, he had earned $22.50 an hour and contributed to the American tax system.

"Immigrants contribute $580 billion in taxes per year. Mass detention and deportations shrink that base, harming programs like Social Security and Medicare," Brané argued.

Removing Jaime and other people in the U.S. who work legally creates more damage in communities, she added.

"Mass detention is an expensive illusion of enforcement. It doesn’t make us safer or stronger. It just ensures that everyone—taxpayers, workers and families alike—pays the price," Brané wrote.