Trump’s New Indictment Is 9 Pages Shorter—Here’s Why That Matters

Donald Trump’s newly revised indictment concerning election interference, unveiled by special counsel Jack Smith, is shorter yet significantly more robust than its predecessor. Legal experts have noted that this updated version has effectively eliminated vulnerabilities related to presidential immunity.

The previous indictment spanned 45 pages and contained elements deemed inadmissible due to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the prosecution of sitting presidents. Conversely, Smith’s new indictment condenses this information into 36 pages, omitting references to Trump’s actions as president, thus focusing solely on him as a candidate in the 2020 election.

Michael Bachner, a former Manhattan prosecutor, underscored that the removal of references to Trump’s official acts was necessary. He indicated that the earlier case would have faced constitutional challenges if taken forward. The new indictment refrains from including Trump’s discussions with Justice Department officials during the final stretch of his administration, which had previously been criticized by the Supreme Court.

Bachner acknowledged that Smith’s strategy to present a newly crafted indictment was essential to progressing the case. By stripping away potentially problematic references, the prosecution has reinforced its legal standing. By centering charges on Campbell Trump’s actions during the campaign, the indictment sidesteps previous pitfalls related to official conduct.

Among the removed sections are discussions surrounding Trump’s attempt to appoint Jeffrey Clark as attorney general. Although this excised material was seen as non-essential, experts agree that it strengthens the overall case against Trump, whose alleged misconduct largely transpired during his candidacy.

Trevor Morrison, a constitutional law scholar at NYU, commented that Smith’s revision aimed to diminish the risk of Trump being classified as immune from these charges, reinforcing that much of the conduct described was private rather than official. However, questions remain about the delineation between Trump’s actions as a candidate and his presidential role. Morrison notes that the ultimate decision may rest with Judge Chutkan and could potentially reach the Supreme Court.

The revised indictment’s success hinges on demonstrating that Trump’s campaign actions were separate from his duties as president. There is concern that the court could argue that both roles are interconnected. Morrison explained that Smith’s ability to counter this argument may be limited.

Additionally, Smith’s decision to present the new indictment to a fresh grand jury rather than revisit the original panel was seen as a clever legal move. This prevents claims that the first jury may have been biased by hearing evidence that was later deemed inadmissible. The secrecy of the second grand jury’s proceedings underscores the integrity that Smith is pursuing in this high-profile case.

Despite the new indictment’s structure, it doesn’t guarantee that a judge won’t dismiss the case before it reaches trial. Morrison pointed out that if the allegations are upheld, Trump could face significant consequences. However, numerous judicial decisions will likely precede any potential trial, which may also be affected by the outcome of the upcoming election.

Following the announcement of the new indictment, Trump pleaded not guilty, describing the move as an attempt to revive an already “dead” investigation. He condemned the charges as a “direct assault on Democracy” via his social media platform.

While Trump’s legal battles continue, the ramifications of the revised indictment will be closely monitored, as they may set the tone for future proceedings and the broader political landscape.

Source: Business Insider