Jack Smith ‘Outsmarted’ Supreme Court in Trump Filing: Historian

Prosecutor Jack Smith has outsmarted the Supreme Court with the evidence he has presented in Donald Trump’s election fraud case, according to one historian.
Writing for The Atlantic, Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz wrote that special counsel Smith made some very smart moves to overcome the Supreme Court’s “shocking decision on July 1 to grant the presidency at least presumed immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts.”
Wilentz believes that by carefully framing Trump’s conduct as personal, he has sidestepped the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling, which gave Trump broad immunity from prosecution.
“That Smith managed to outsmart the Court as much as he did is a remarkable feat that could have important results—but only if Kamala Harris succeeds in winning the presidency,” he wrote.
That’s because a Department of Justice under Harris would almost certainly allow Smith to continue the prosecution of Trump.
If Trump is elected president, he would likely prevent the prosecution from continuing, Wilentz believes.
“Smith’s filing tries to slice through the [Supreme] Court’s security shield regarding the insurrection,” Wilentz wrote in an opinion article on Monday. “Skillfully quoting from or alluding to language in the Court majority’s own opinion, the filing demolishes the notion that Trump’s activities, culminating on January 6, deserve immunity.”
Smith quoted Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote that Trump could be prosecuted for certain acts as president, such as establishing his own panel of electors in each state to verify his presidential win in 2020.
Trump has been indicted in Washington, D.C., on four counts of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. The Republican presidential nominee has pleaded not guilty and has said the case is part of a political witch hunt.
Newsweek sought email comment from Trump’s attorney on Wednesday.
In response to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, Smith filed a new indictment and then released his evidence brief on October 2, setting out the private actions for which Trump can be prosecuted.
“In remounting his case, Smith has taken the opportunity to release previously unknown details, some of which he says he doesn’t even plan to present at trial, that underscore the depravity as well as the extent of Trump’s criminal actions,” Wilentz added.
“Consider, for example, Smith’s telling of Trump’s reaction to the news from one of his staff, at the height of the violence on January 6, that his tweets attacking Pence had placed Pence’s life in extreme danger. ‘So what?’ Trump reportedly replied. He had clearly intended for his tweets to reach the mob at the Capitol,” Wilentz wrote.
“His nonchalance about the vice president’s life epitomizes the lengths to which he would go to complete his coup d’état.”