Jack Smith Just Teased ‘New Evidence’ Against Trump—Legal Analyst

Amid Donald Trump’s federal election interference case, legal analyst and attorney Glenn Kirschner said on Saturday that Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith just teased “new evidence” against the former president in a recent joint filing.
Trump, the GOP’s presidential nominee, faces four federal charges in the case into his alleged attempts to thwart the 2020 election results, which the former president has claimed was stolen from him via widespread voter fraud despite a lack of substantial evidence.
The charges include conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and alleges the case is politically motivated.
On Tuesday, Smith filed a revised indictment against Trump, which comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in July that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts, but not for acts as a private citizen or candidate. Trump has argued his actions were official acts so he should not be prosecuted.
However, prosecutors allege he was acting as a private citizen for many of his alleged attempts at overturning the election results. In the latest indictment, Smith emphasized that Trump was acting as a candidate—not as president—when trying to overturn the 2020 election. The indictment still includes the same four criminal counts on which Trump was initially charged.
In a joint court filing on Friday, both Trump’s legal team and Smith agreed on what types of motions and briefing are likely in pre-trial proceedings, but noted they have “differing views on how the Court should schedule these matters and the manner in which they are to be conducted.”
In a Saturday appearance on MSNBC’s The Katie Phang Show, Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney and frequent Trump critic, spoke about the revised indictment as well as the joint filing.
“Even though we know some of the information about Donald Trump’s crimes and conduct because we read both the original 45 page indictment and the newly released 36 page indictment, Jack Smith just said, ‘Judge Chutkan I’m going to put lots of other information and evidence about Donald Trump’s crimes and conduct so you have it all so you can make a decision about whether each thing Donald Trump did was official or unofficial,'” Kirschner said.
He added: “And of course Donald Trump’s lawyers for the next seven and a half pages put a bunch of nonsense in there designed to delay the case…and they don’t even get to the immunity question. Why? Because they don’t want any of that new evidence and information coming out before the election or at any other time if they can help it.”
Newsweek has reached out to Trump’s spokesperson via email and Smith via the DOJ online form.
The new indictment, which was “presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case,” according to a spokesperson for the special counsel, focuses on the “unofficial, private conduct by Trump that the Supreme Court has said is fair game for prosecutors to pursue.”
This comes after Trump’s lawyers argued any “additional proceedings” after the immunity case, which could include trial if the case is not dismissed, should take place in “spring—fall 2025.”
Trump’s lawyers also suggested details of the defense’s motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity should be provided by December 13, after which the special counsel will reply by January 3. They suggest non-evidentiary hearings “regarding motions to dismiss and compel” are heard on the week of January 27, 2025.
Smith’s, by contrast, are keen to move on quickly with the case, asking the court for any other Trump motions in the case to “run parallel with the schedule” to discuss immunity.
Prosecutors rejected the bid to get the case dismissed over presidential immunity, stating: “The Government proposes that it file an opening briefing in which it will explain why the immunity set forth in Trump [the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling] does not apply to the categories of allegations in the superseding indictment.”