BREAKING: Jack Smith's 165-page motion arguing against presidential immunity in Trump J6 case unsealed

District Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed on Wednesday a 165-page filing from Biden-Harris administration special counsel Jack Smith regarding upcoming presidential immunity proceedings in the January 6 case against Trump. Smith argued that Trump did not have presidential immunity for the crimes the DOJ alleges Trump committed, as "his scheme was fundamentally a private one."

On July 1, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on presidential immunity, an issue raised by Trump's team in the January 6 case. The case had been on hold pending the ruling. The high court ruled that a president has immunity for official acts, but not for unofficial ones, and handed the case back to the lower court to determine what is official and unofficial about the actions in the case.

"The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so," the filing states.

"Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted—a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role."

According to CBS News, the Smith submitted the filing last week, with Trump and his legal team being given until Tuesday to respond. Trump’s team opposed the move to file the document publicly, and Chutkan granted Smith’s request to do so.

Smith noted that the Supreme Court ruling held that presidents have immunity for certain official acts, including Trump’s communications with the Department of Justice, and the case was handed back down to determine whether the remaining allegations in this case constituted as an immune action. "The answer to that question is no."

The filing alleges that "the defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won," adding that "the evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew his fraud claims were false because he continued to make those claims even after his close advisors—acting not in an official capacity but in a private or Campaign-related capacity—told him they were not true."

This is a breaking story. Please refresh the page for updates.

Government's Motion For Immunity Determinations by Hannah Nightingale on Scribd