US prosecutors have issued revised charges against former President Donald Trump related to his alleged efforts to interfere in the 2020 election following his loss.
The updated charges are designed to address a Supreme Court ruling that grants presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in their official capacity, which had cast doubt on the case.
Trump denies the allegations that he pressured officials to overturn the election results, knowingly spread false claims of election fraud, and sought to use the January 6 riot at the US Capitol to delay the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.
It seems unlikely that this case, along with other criminal cases he faces, will be resolved before the next election on November 5.
The revised indictment, filed by Department of Justice (DoJ) Special Counsel Jack Smith, maintains the four original charges against Trump: conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. However, these charges now pertain to Trump’s role as a political candidate rather than as a sitting president.
Trump has previously pleaded not guilty to all charges.
He wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform that the fresh indictment was “an effort to resurrect a ‘dead’ Witch Hunt” and “distract the American People” from this year’s election. He called for it to be “dismissed IMMEDIATELY”.
His campaign has not responded to a BBC request for comment. But a source close to his legal team told CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, the second indictment “was not a surprise”.
“This is what the government is supposed to do based on what the Supreme Court did,” the source said. “It doesn’t change our position that we believe Smith’s case is flawed and it should be dismissed.”
What’s changed – and what hasn’t?
The updated charging document, reduced from 45 to 36 pages, revises the language of the allegations in response to last month’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
The revised charges argue that Trump acted as a private citizen, rather than as president, when engaging in the alleged scheme to influence the election.
“The defendant had no official responsibilities related to the certification proceeding, but he did have a personal interest as a candidate in being named the winner of the election,” reads one new line in the indictment.
Another new line refers to a lawsuit filed by Trump’s campaign in Georgia. The old language said the suit was “filed in his name”, but the updated indictment says it was “filed in his capacity as a candidate for president”.
The updated document appears to have dropped the charges against Jeffrey Clark, a former DOJ official implicated in the alleged fake electors scheme, according to prosecutors. Although Clark was not mentioned in either indictment, he has been identified in the media through public records.
Additionally, the revised indictment no longer includes the claim that Trump attempted to pressure DOJ officials to overturn his defeat. The Supreme Court has determined that Trump’s direction to justice officials was not illegal.
The special counsel’s office noted that the superseding indictment was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously reviewed evidence in the case.
A grand jury is convened by a prosecutor to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution.
The new indictment maintains several significant allegations against Trump, including claims that he tried to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden’s election.
This is despite the fact that communications between Trump and Pence would likely be considered “official” acts, which, according to the Supreme Court, would grant Trump immunity from prosecution.
Professor Daniel Richman, a constitutional law expert at Columbia Law School, indicated that Mr. Smith interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to mean that the case could still proceed.
But whether it would satisfy the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity framework remained unclear, Prof Richman told the BBC. “The court was painfully vague as to what private conduct done by a president can be charged criminally,” he said.
Trump’s other legal issues
The revised indictment would not necessarily expedite the case, Prof Richman said. He doubted it would be heard before the 2024 election.
The CBS News source close to Trump’s legal team said the former president’s lawyers would ask for more time to prepare for the case. They said this would likely delay the start of the trial if the judge agreed.
This case emerged following Mr. Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to oversee two federal investigations into Trump: one involving election interference and another related to accusations that Trump took classified documents to his Florida home after leaving office.
On Monday, Mr. Smith’s team appealed a Florida judge’s decision to dismiss the latter case. Judge Aileen Cannon had dismissed it on the grounds that the existence of special counsels violated the US Constitution.
Mr. Smith contended that the judge’s opinion was inconsistent with established legal precedent.
Both cases face uncertain futures in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.
The same applies to a separate case in Georgia, where Trump and 18 others are charged with criminally conspiring to overturn his narrow 2020 defeat. Trump has pleaded not guilty, and no trial date has been set.
Meanwhile, Trump is awaiting sentencing after being convicted in New York in May for falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star.
If Trump defeats Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in November, it is widely anticipated that he would direct officials to drop all remaining federal charges against him.