Just over two months until he faces off with Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential election and Donald Trump has been slapped with yet another federal indictment.
On Tuesday August 27, special counsel Jack Smith—who has spearheaded the prosecution of Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election—filed another indictment against the former president. This time, the prosecution team took into account the July Supreme Court decision which found that presidents are protected from prosecution if their actions resemble their “core” powers as designated in the Constitution.
In other words, Trump was not inherently permitted to be prosecuted for the charges against him—that was left to be determined as to whether his actions qualified as official acts which he made from the Oval Office.
Smith’s team filed a “superseding indictment” this week which charged Trump with “the same criminal offenses” that were included in the first indictment last year. However, the evidence that would have been allowed to be presented under the first indictment has now been adjusted. Now, the case can proceed with less extensive evidence to back the charges but without the same immunity challenges.
Prosecutors wrote in court documents that there are still multiple instances in which Trump acted beyond his authority as president, therefore not protecting him from prosecution for those specific acts. Specifically, Smith’s team argued that he had “no official responsibilities” regarding the any state’s certification process for the election results.
The updated indictment came after Smith’s team appealed a court decision that dismissed a case against Trump relating to his handling of classified records. They maintained that this case, tossed out in the middle of July by a Trump-appointed judge, was incorrectly dismissed on the grounds that Smith was appointed unconstitutionally.
Judge Aileen Cannon had determined that Smith should not have been appointed due to his lack of confirmation from the Senate, meaning he was unlawfully authorized for his job. The special counsel’s team argued that this decision was made after the judge ignored previous court rulings.
