Jack Smith has dubious timing — but a good case

This curious timing is yet another reminder that little about this case has been typical — the charges, the defendant, the stakes for the country. Mr. Trump is unique among defendants in that he could soon have the power end his own prosecution, by winning the White House and ordering the Justice Department to end it. True, Judge Chutkan had asked both Mr. Smith and Mr. Trump to submit arguments about the case’s future, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Yet Mr. Smith’s actions also ensured Americans have more case materials available to them shortly before they vote — a questionable call for a prosecutor to make, even considering the case’s unusual character.

Whatever the motivations, voters cannot unsee or ignore the record as it now stands. And it is damning.

The Justice Department has forensic evidence backing up the stories of Mr. Trump sitting alone in the Oval Office, watching Fox News and scrolling through Twitter on his phone, while rioters ran rampant through the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. When he was told that Vice President Mike Pence had been taken to a secure location after insurrectionists chanted for his hanging, Mr. Trump allegedly responded, “So what?”

Mr. Trump had earlier pressured Mr. Pence to refuse to certify the 2020 vote, encouraging his vice president not to look at the election “as a loss — just an intermission,” and urging him to focus on how Mr. Trump had given the Republican Party “a new lease on life.” Mr. Trump told one of his lawyers who believed his claims would not hold up in court that “the details don’t matter.” He exhorted family members on Marine One, “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”

These powerful pieces of evidence help reveal Mr. Trump’s intent — essential to closing the case. The prosecutors don’t explicitly allege that he was aware he lost the election, but their filing makes clear that he didn’t care whether he was right; his goal was to create discord and doubt that he could use to keep himself in power, not to ensure the integrity of the vote.

In other words, the record is more appalling than ever. But, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mr. Smith must argue that Mr. Trump took his actions on and around Jan. 6 in his personal capacity, as a citizen and candidate, not in his public capacity as president. The new brief suggests Mr. Smith can do so.

Mr. Trump’s Jan. 6 Ellipse speech, in which he whipped up the pro-Trump crowd before it attacked the Capitol, was a campaign rally. The brief notes that private individuals funded it and that the Trump campaign’s social media channels promoted it as a rally. “Y.M.C.A.” — not “Hail to the Chief” — bookended the event as Mr. Trump arrived and departed. Mr. Trump’s communications with Mr. Pence are those of one partisan running mate to another, not the official statements of the president to the vice president. Mr. Trump’s damning statements to lawyers and family members reflect his personal interests as a presidential candidate, not his duties as chief executive. And Mr. Trump’s many interactions with state and local officials were entirely unofficial, as the president has no constitutional role in their appointing and ascertaining of electors.

Judge Chutkan will soon have to decide whether the case can proceed. Mr. Smith’s new filing makes a strong argument that it should. After that, a jury would have to determine whether Mr. Trump’s actions were more than just atrocious, but criminal.

Yet before all that, voters will have to confront the unpleasant yet undeniable truths about Mr. Trump’s record and character, revealed once again in black and white.