Is Jack Smith prosecuting Trump for January 6 or for his larger conspiracy to disrupt American democracy?

You’re reading a special edition of The Briefing, Michael Waldman’s take on the headlines. Click here

[link removed]

to receive it weekly.

([link removed])

Donald Trump’s legal hot water continues to heat up. Special counsel Jack Smith sent a target letter to the former president last week, and an indictment could come within days. We don’t yet know Smith’s full theory of the case, but the statutes he is reportedly considering open the possibility of a broad prosecution that could go beyond the events of January 6. The insurrection was not an isolated moment of political violence but a last throw of the dice in Trump’s monthslong conspiracy to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. The prosecution should recognize that fact.

Smith has reportedly notified Trump that he could be charged under three statutes. The most widely anticipated of the charges is for obstructing an official proceeding — Congress’s certification of the 2020 election results on January 6. A second charge, attempting to defraud the United States, likely relates to Trump’s collection of fake elector certificates, which he pressed Vice President Mike Pence to adopt in order to subvert the Electoral College.

These charges both relate directly to the events of January 6. But the third charge could go further. Smith reportedly will accuse Trump of violating Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a crime to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

The provision, originally part of the Ku Klux Klan Acts of the Reconstruction era, aimed to protect Black voters from intimidation and physical violence. The KKK’s power has faded since then, but the law remains a vital safeguard against all forms of election subversion, as my colleague Sean Morales-Doyle explains

([link removed])

. It has been used to prosecute public officials who attempted to omit valid ballots from a vote count as well as private actors who sought to coerce or bribe voters. Just this year, a Twitter user who gave deliberately false voting instructions to divert votes from Hillary Clinton in 2016 was convicted under Section 241.

Fundamentally, Section 241 prohibits any attempt to prevent, alter, dilute, or nullify a vote. How did Trump conspire to do so? Let us count the ways.

He contacted the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, seeking help in overturning the state’s electoral results. He called county canvassing board officials in Michigan, after which the officials attempted to rescind their certification of the vote. Most infamously, he called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, urging him to “find 11,780 votes,” enough to reverse Joe Biden’s win in the state.

Trump tried to weaponize the court system, filing a slew of bogus lawsuits to stop the counting and certification of votes. These lawsuits were based on conspiracy theories and disinformation, in at least one case leading to court-ordered sanctions against his attorneys. (Will these frivolous lawsuits be included in the charges? That’s hard to say, for constitutional reasons. But as a matter of fact if not law, they were part of the effort to undo the legitimate election results.)

Trump’s spokespeople and allies in the media lied relentlessly about both the voting machines and the actual human beings tasked with counting the votes. The lies were so shameless that Fox News agreed to pay a whopping settlement rather than having to defend them in court.

And, finally, Trump’s associates contacted leaders of white supremacist groups to help bring armed and deluded goons to Washington, where Trump urged them to “fight like hell.”

All of this happened before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi banged the gavel on January 6 to begin the certification of the 2020 election.

Insurrections aren’t built in a day. January 6 was the result of months of planning by a band of election saboteurs, with Trump at its center.





Safe and Sensible Surveillance Reform

Congress is considering whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Act. The provision has raised privacy concerns amid overwhelming evidence that the government has misused it to conduct warrantless searches of Americans’ communications. Advocates have proposed several reforms, including adding a warrant requirement. The Biden administration argues that this would endanger Americans, but scrutiny of how the government uses the surveillance authority suggests that this claim isn’t true. “This reasonable reform would protect our privacy — but make us no less safe,” Noah Chauvin writes. Read more

([link removed])

New York City’s Jails in Crisis

Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor has asked a federal judge to take over the Rikers Island jail complex due to New York City’s failure to address years of worsening violence and dysfunction. If the judge agrees, an outside expert would temporarily run the jails in the hope of improving miserable, and often fatal, conditions behind bars. City leadership claims that this move would be undemocratic, but it may be necessary if the city can’t “follow the law and protect the lives, safety, and well-being of people in its jails,” Hernandez Stroud writes. READ MORE

([link removed])

Strengthening Ethics in Election Administration

In recent years, election officials have faced an onslaught of attacks fueled by misperceptions of their work. Adopting an expanded code of ethics would enhance their credibility with the public and better safeguard democracy. A new Brennan Center resource details the benefits of revising the field’s existing ethical standards and lays out what this new code should look like. Read more

([link removed])

How Every State Changes Its Constitution

The constitutions of the 50 states have been amended some 7,000 times — a staggering number compared to the mere 27 amendments to the federal Constitution. This is in part because of the range of options for making changes to state charters. In State Court Report, Wake Forest University professor John Dinan provides an overview of the various ways that state constitutions can be amended by legislatures, citizens, conventions, and commissions. READ MORE

([link removed])

State-Level Constraints on Extreme Punishments

The Supreme Court’s conservatives have long embraced a narrow, originalist view of the federal constitutional protections against “cruel and unusual” punishment. But state courts don’t have to follow their lead. As legal experts Ben Finholt and Kevin Bendesky explain in a new State Court Report piece, an examination of the unique texts and histories of state analogues to the Eighth Amendment shows that state constitutions can offer far more expansive protections than their federal counterpart. READ MORE

([link removed])


News

Kareem Crayton on redistricting conflicts in Alabama // ASSOCIATED PRESS

([link removed])

Maya Kornberg on partisan rancor in congressional committees // BLOOMBERG LAW

([link removed])

Mekela Panditharatne on the threat of AI to elections // POLITIFACT

([link removed])

Wendy Weiser on the importance of public trust in elections // ABC NEWS

([link removed])

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







([link removed])

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]
Support Brennan Center

([link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])