Legal Analyst Suggests Special Counsel May Reveal New Evidence in Trump Election Interference Case

In the ongoing federal election interference case against Donald Trump, legal analyst Glenn Kirschner pointed out that special counsel Jack Smith hinted at new evidence against the former president in a recent joint filing.

Trump, who is facing four federal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, continues to assert that the election was stolen from him despite a lack of evidence. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges, which include conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

Smith recently filed a revised indictment, highlighting that Trump’s actions to challenge the election were made as a private citizen, not as president. This distinction follows a Supreme Court ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts but not for actions taken as private individuals. Although the revised indictment reiterates the original charges, it underscores that Trump’s alleged misconduct was in his capacity as a candidate rather than as the sitting president.

In a joint court filing, Trump’s legal team and Smith outlined the expected motions and briefings but disagreed on the timeline and process for these pre-trial proceedings. Kirschner discussed this development, suggesting that Smith plans to introduce additional evidence regarding Trump’s conduct. He argued that Trump’s legal team is trying to delay the case to prevent this new evidence from being revealed before the 2024 election.

Kirschner criticized Trump’s attorneys for attempting to sidestep the issue of presidential immunity, which he believes is a strategy to delay the release of potentially damaging information. In response, Trump’s spokesperson dismissed Kirschner’s remarks, arguing that his opinions are irrelevant.

The new indictment, presented to a different grand jury, emphasizes Trump’s “unofficial, private conduct,” which prosecutors assert is not shielded by presidential immunity. While Trump’s legal team proposed a timeline that would delay further proceedings until late 2025, Smith’s team is advocating for a quicker resolution, arguing that Trump’s actions do not qualify for immunity under the Supreme Court’s ruling.