### Prosecutor Outmaneuvers Supreme Court in Trump Election Fraud Case, Historian Says

In an impressive legal maneuver, Prosecutor Jack Smith has managed to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling that granted former President Donald Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution related to his official acts. Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, writing for The Atlantic, praised Smith for his strategic approach in framing Trump’s actions as personal rather than official, effectively sidestepping the court’s protection.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on July 1 afforded Trump presumptive immunity, a decision that many found controversial. However, Wilentz believes that Smith's deft handling of the evidence could have significant consequences, potentially prosecuting Trump if Kamala Harris becomes president. Under her administration, it’s likely the Department of Justice would permit Smith to continue pressing charges against Trump. However, if Trump wins the presidency, he would probably halt the prosecution.

In a detailed opinion article, Wilentz explained how Smith leveraged the Supreme Court's own language to counter its immunity shield. By quoting Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who conceded that Trump could face prosecution for certain acts, Smith strengthened his case. Barrett noted that Trump’s actions, such as forming his own panel of electors in attempts to validate his 2020 election win, did not qualify for immunity.

Trump has been charged in Washington, D.C., with four counts related to attempting to overturn the 2020 election results before the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The former president, who is the Republican nominee, has pleaded not guilty, dismissing the case as a political witch hunt. Newsweek reached out to Trump’s attorney for comment on Wednesday.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Smith presented a fresh indictment and revealed new evidence on October 2, detailing the private actions for which Trump could be held accountable. In this new evidence brief, Smith included unknown and startling details, some of which he doesn’t plan to use at trial, highlighting the extent of Trump’s alleged criminal actions.

Wilentz cited an example from Smith’s evidence, describing Trump’s reaction to a staffer during the January 6 violence. When informed that his tweets targeting Vice President Mike Pence had put Pence's life in severe danger, Trump reportedly replied, "So what?" This interaction suggested Trump’s intention for his messages to incite the mob at the Capitol.

Smith's meticulous work in dismantling the Supreme Court's immunity ruling represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle against Trump. The future of this prosecution largely hinges on the outcome of the next presidential election.