Jack Smith is warning us of the deadly crimes Trump would commit in a second term--Please Listen.

This is unlike any brief from Smith before

Special counsel Jack Smith filed a jaw-dropping brief Saturday in opposition to Donald Trump’s claim he’s immune for the crimes he committed in the White House. In my view, this filing was less of a legal argument and more a stark warning about what Smith believes Trump is capable of if he won in 2024--and its both correct and bone-chilling.

As a brief reminder, this appeal is in connection with Trump’s Jan 6 criminal case where he’s facing four felonies for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. As the criminal indictment lays out in that case: “Despite having lost, the Defendant [Trump] was determined to remain in power.”   From there, as detailed in the indictment, Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

Last month, Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s motion that he was immune from prosecution for the crimes he committed in office, writing that the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass." Rather, as the judge rightly noted, "Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” and “may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."

Trump’s lawyers appealed Judge Chutkan’s decision to the US Court of Appeals--which will hear oral argument on the motion this Tuesday, January 9.

Smith’s opposition to Trump’s appeal, as expected, cites legal authority that utterly defeats Trump’s outrageous argument. But Smith goes much further. He paints a picture of what a President could do if Trump’s argument was accepted by the court—and uncoincidentally, it sounds very much like the types of crimes Trump would engage in given his track record.

The Special counsel’s brief first rejects Trump’s preposterous argument that prosecuting him threatens to “shatter the very bedrock of our Republic.” Smith continued, “To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic.”

The special counsel then zeros in on what could happen in the real world if Trump’s argument of immunity for all crimes was accepted, noting, “The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering.”

Smith then gave us example after example of crimes a President could commit which instantly match the allegations that have long been made against Trump. First, Smith explained that Trump’s “approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer.” 

Obviously, this conjures up Trump who profited off his time in the White House, including making an estimated $160 million from foreign countries over his term—as the ethics watchdog organization CREW documented.  And of course, there’s Trump’s big payoff from Saudi Arabia in exchange for Trump repeatedly defending that nation’s leader Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) against allegations he orchestrated the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Once Trump left office, MBS rewarded Trump with Saudi backed professional golf tournaments at his golf courses—worth millions in revenue--and his son-in-law Jared Kushner received $2 billions in investment funds.

Smith’s next example of what a President who is immune from prosecution might do again is all Trump: “A President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy.” This harkens to Trump’s blackmailing of Ukraine’s President Zelensky to obtain “dirt” on Joe Biden that led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Next, Smith warned about violence a President could intentionally order and not be prosecuted for. First, he noted that if the court accepted Trump’s argument it could lead to, “a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics.”  

And later in the brief, Smith addressed Trump’s argument that unless he was convicted by the Senate after impeachment, he was immune for his crimes. Smith raised the concern that could lead to a President “inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers — thereby hamstringing any impeachment proceeding — to ensure that he remains in office unlawfully.”

Typically, a warning that a US President would order the killing of his critics or lawmakers would seem preposterous. But it’s not for Trump. This is a man who urged his supporters (aka his militia) on Jan 6 to head to the Capitol to “stop the steal” knowing they were armed and very angry. Trump refused for more than three hours to call off the attack—despite pleas from close associates. And in the midst of the brutal attack, Trump intentionally put a bullseye on the back of his then Vice President Pence by tweeting, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."  

Since then, Trump has repeatedly slammed critics, knowing his supporters would then target these people with threats of violence or actual acts of violence—ranging from Republican members of Congress who dared to defy him to a violent attack on an FBI field office after the FBI executed a search warrant of Mar-a-Lago. At no time has Trump denounced the violence by his supporters. In fact, Trump has instead pledged to pardon the Jan 6 terrorists who waged that attack in his name, thus, incentivizing more violent acts on his behalf.

The final example Smith offered of what a President who is immune from prosecution could do was this: “a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.” That example instantly conjures up Trump’s past conduct given he’s facing forty felonies for violating the Espionage Act as well as crimes for obstruction justice. We also know from reporting that after Trump left the White House, he shared sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with an Australian billionaire who is a member of his Mar-a-Lago club.

No one reading this would believe that Joe Biden, Barack Obama or even George W. Bush would sell nuclear secrets for a profit, incite violence to benefit themselves politically or even target critics for death. Conversely, no one reading this would doubt for a moment that Trump would do just that. In fact, Trump has already engaged in much of that conduct—and would in a second term, go even further given his pledge to use the Presidency to exact revenge and “retribution,” calling his political opponents “vermin” and vowing to “liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all.”

As Smith correctly stated, Trump’s “sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office.” That is exactly what Trump attempted after losing in 2020. And if Trump’s argument was accepted by the courts--and he won in 2024--Trump would not only commit the crimes outlined in Smith’s brief, but Trump would legally be able to remain in office for the remainder of his life.

It’s long past time Trump be held accountable for his crimes against the United States of America. And while Smith won’t say this is his legal filings, Trump needs to spend the final days of his unnatural life in a prison cell as a warning to all that if you attempt a coup and incite a terrorist attack on our Capitol that, too, will be your fate. That's the ONLY way to deter Trump and others like him from ever repeating those grave crimes.

---