法官在针对特朗普的联邦选举案中公布新证据

【中美创新时报2024 年 10 月 3 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）周三公开的一份长达 165 页法庭文件中披露的新证据阐述了为什么这位前总统特朗普不能免于因密谋推翻 2020 年大选而受到联邦起诉。《纽约时报》记者艾伦·费尔和查理·萨维奇（Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage）对此作了下述报道。

当一名助手告诉他，随着 2021 年 1 月 6 日国会山的骚乱升级，副总统迈克·彭斯处于危险之中时，唐纳德·特朗普总统回答说：“那又怎么样？”

当他的一名律师告诉他，他关于选举被广泛欺诈所破坏的虚假指控在法庭上站不住脚时，特朗普回答说：“细节并不重要。”

在选举结束后与特朗普及其家人一起飞行时，一名椭圆形办公室助理听到特朗普说：“无论你赢得还是输掉选举都无关紧要。你仍然必须拼命战斗。”

这些说法是周三公开的一份法庭文件中披露的新证据之一，在这份文件中，负责调查特朗普的特别检察官阐述了为什么这位前总统不能免于因密谋推翻 2020 年大选而受到联邦起诉。

这份长达 165 页的简报由华盛顿美国地方法院法官 Tanya Chutkan 公布，部分内容被删减，但内容广泛，为特朗普如何在已经详尽的记录中增加了细节，记录了特朗普如何在竞选失败后仍试图继续掌权。

由特别检察官杰克·史密斯领导的检察团队的简报声称，有充分证据表明，特朗普为保住职位所做的努力是一位绝望的失败候选人的行为，而不是总统的官方行为，根据今年夏天具有里程碑意义的最高法院裁决，总统的行为将被视为免于起诉。

“被告声称，他因推翻 2020 年总统大选的犯罪计划而免于起诉，因为他声称这涉及官方行为，”检察官写道。“事实并非如此。尽管被告在被指控的阴谋期间是现任总统，但他的阴谋从根本上来说是一个私人阴谋。”

这份简报是在最高法院豁免裁决三个月后公布的，距离选举日不到五周，而特朗普现任竞选搭档、俄亥俄州参议员 JD Vance 在副总统辩论中拒绝表示特朗普在 2020 年败选仅一天。

史密斯的简报最初于上周密封提交。它旨在帮助负责此案的 Chutkan 确定有多少起诉书能够经受住最高法院 7 月的里程碑式裁决的考验，该裁决授予特朗普广泛的豁免权，使其免于因任职期间的许多官方行为而受到起诉。

自去年年底特朗普开始提出他应该获得豁免的法律论点以来，起诉基本上处于搁置状态。Chutkan 现在正在确定史密斯提交的修订起诉书中有多少内容（如果有的话）可以根据最高法院设定的复杂标准继续进行。

总体而言，史密斯和他的副手们利用他们的简报将起诉书中的许多个人指控描绘成可以起诉的对象。

尽管这份内容广泛的文件的法律目的很狭隘，但它也起到了类似于审判简报的作用，史密斯全面阐述了他在近两年的特朗普调查中所了解到的情况。应史密斯和他的团队的要求，楚特坎公布了删节版。

特别检察官向楚特坎提交的文件与众议院特别委员会近两年前发布的调查 1 月 6 日国会大厦遇袭事件的长篇报告并无二致。

特朗普批评了这份简报及其发布，称其是一种政治行为。“他们不应该允许这些信息公之于众，”他在周三接受 NewsNation 采访时表示。

该文件描述了特朗普及其盟友之间熟悉的相互交织的阴谋。这些行为包括强迫州政府官员推翻选举结果、伪造选举人名单声称特朗普赢得了他实际上输掉的关键州，以及在 1 月 6 日确认最终结果的程序中向自己的副总统施压，让他以自己的方式赢得选举。

但特别检察官的文件也为特朗普的形象增添了新的细节，他在输给乔·拜登后努力留在白宫，最终导致暴徒袭击国会大厦。

例如，这份简报的一部分重点关注了特朗普在 1 月 6 日袭击国会大厦当天下午发布的社交媒体帖子，告诉支持者彭斯让他们失望了。史密斯列举了大量论据，说明为什么那篇推特帖子应该值得起诉特朗普。

在特朗普的推特帖子将愤怒的暴徒的注意力集中在伤害彭斯上，特勤局将副总统带到安全地点后，一名助手冲进椭圆形办公室外的餐厅，特朗普当时正在那里看电视。助手向他通报了事态的发展，希望特朗普能采取行动确保彭斯的安全。

根据简报，特朗普看着助手，只是说：“那又怎么样？”

史密斯坚称这篇帖子是非官方行为，他指出特朗普的顾问一直在敦促他发布一条消息来平息暴力事件，但他拒绝了，而是发了一条关于彭斯的推文。

“下午 2:24 的推文内容并不是一条为了解决公众担忧和缓解骚乱而发出的信息；这是一位意识到自己将失去权力的愤怒候选人发出的信息，”史密斯写道。

史密斯指出，在发布推文前几分钟，福克斯新闻播出了对一名抗议者向国会大厦游行并对彭斯表示失望的采访。随后，福克斯新闻报道称，一名警察可能受伤，抗议者闯入国会大厦。

检察官写道，这些证据“表明被告为了发布私人推文而私下查看了哪些社交媒体和新闻”。 “政府不会从被告的工作人员那里获取有关他的官方审议、对社交媒体或电视的反应或官方采取的应对行动的证词。”

检察官多次将特朗普与 1 月 6 日冲进国会大厦的支持者直接联系起来。简报描述了其中一名袭击者当天前往华盛顿，因为特朗普“告诉我们，我们有一件大事值得期待”，其他人则穿着衣服，举着向他宣誓效忠的旗帜闯入国会大厦。

史密斯首次将一名播客兼前特朗普助手牵连到所谓的让特朗普继续掌权的阴谋中，该人在该案中被认定为“人物 1”，与史蒂夫·班农 (Steve Bannon) 相像。

该简报称，人物 1 在该案中没有受到指控，但在特朗普对彭斯的施压活动中发挥了不可或缺的作用。班农因拒绝向调查特朗普保住权力企图的众议院特别委员会作证而因藐视国会而被判处四个月监禁。

史密斯的简报还称，特朗普和他的一些盟友——比如他的私人律师鲁迪·朱利安尼 (Rudy Giuliani)——在公开场合对选举舞弊提出荒谬指控，而其他与他关系密切的助手私下对同样的指控表示怀疑。

例如，2020 年 12 月初，朱利安尼出席了佐治亚州立法者的听证会，并宣布多达 10,000 名“死亡选民”在竞选中投票。

然而，简报称，就在同一时刻，特朗普的幕僚长马克·梅多斯和前总统的一名律师正在互发短信，对这一说法表示怀疑，并互相分享了佐治亚州只有 12 张选票归因于死者。

史密斯还让读者闭门阅读他的简报，以展示特朗普如何试图说服州议员将选举结果投给他。

例如，他的简报描述了 2020 年 11 月 20 日在椭圆形办公室举行的一次会议，特朗普试图说服密歇根州的两位高级州议员，他赢得了选举。与他们一起参加会议的还有朱利安尼、共和党全国委员会主席罗娜·麦克丹尼尔，以及至少有一段时间的梅多斯。

简报称，当议员们告诉特朗普，他在密歇根州的选举中落败是因为他在“受过教育的女性”中表现不佳时，特朗普很不高兴。

简报称，从特朗普的“肢体语言”中，这位议员可以看出“他不乐意听到”这样的评价。

史密斯反复提到的一个主题是，特朗普身边的高级官员曾多次劝说他认输。

简报称，在 2020 年 11 月中旬的一次私人午餐中，彭斯向特朗普建议，他应该接受失败，并在下一届总统竞选中再次参选。

但特朗普不想听这个。

“我不知道，”简报引用他的话说，“2024 年还很遥远。”

本文最初发表在《纽约时报》上。

题图：特别顾问杰克·史密斯。道格·米尔斯/纽约时报

附原英文报道：

Judge unseals new evidence in federal election case against Trump

By Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage New York Times,Updated October 3, 2024 

Special counsel Jack Smith.DOUG MILLS/NYT

When told by an aide that Vice President Mike Pence was in peril as the rioting on Capitol Hill escalated on Jan. 6, 2021, President Donald Trump replied, “So what?”

When one of his lawyers told him that his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud would not hold up in court, Trump responded, “The details don’t matter.”

On a flight with Trump and his family after the election, an Oval Office assistant heard Trump say: “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”

Those accounts were among new evidence disclosed in a court filing made public Wednesday in which the special counsel investigating Trump made his case for why the former president is not immune from prosecution on federal charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Made public by Judge Tanya Chutkan of U.S. District Court in Washington, the 165-page brief was partly redacted but expansive, adding details to the already extensive record of how Trump lost the race but attempted nonetheless to cling to power.

The brief from the prosecution team led by special counsel Jack Smith asserts that there is ample evidence that Trump’s efforts to remain in office were those of a desperate losing candidate rather than official acts of a president that would be considered immune from prosecution under a landmark Supreme Court ruling this summer.

“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,” prosecutors wrote. “Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent president during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one.”

The brief was unsealed three months after the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, less than five weeks from Election Day and one day after Trump’s current running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, declined during the vice presidential debate to say that Trump had lost in 2020.

Smith’s brief was initially filed under seal last week. It was designed to help Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, determine how much of the indictment can survive the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in July granting Trump a broad form of immunity against prosecution for many official acts while in office.

The prosecution has essentially been on hold since late last year, when Trump began making the legal argument that he should be immune. Chutkan is now determining how much, if any, of a revised indictment filed by Smith can go forward under the complex standards set by the Supreme Court.

Overall, Smith and his deputies used their brief to paint the indictment’s many individual allegations as fair game for prosecution.

Still, despite its narrow legal purpose, the expansive filing also served as something like a trial brief, setting forth Smith’s fullest exposition yet of what he has learned in his nearly two-year-long investigation of Trump. Chutkan unsealed the redacted version at the request of Smith and his team.

The special counsel’s filing to Chutkan was not unlike the tomelike report issued nearly two years ago by the House select committee that investigated the events leading up to the attack of the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Trump criticized the brief and its release, portraying it as a political act. “They should have never allowed the information to be — to come before the public,” he said in an interview on NewsNation on Wednesday.

The filing described a familiar web of intersecting plots by Trump and his allies. They included efforts to strong-arm state officials to overturn the election results, create false slates of electors claiming that Trump had won key states he actually lost and wage a pressure campaign against his own vice president to throw the election his way during a proceeding to certify its final outcome on Jan. 6.

But the special counsel’s filing also added new details to the portrait of Trump as he scrambled to remain in the White House after losing the election to Joe Biden, culminating in the mob attack on the Capitol.

Part of the brief focuses, for example, on a social media post that Trump sent on the afternoon of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, telling supporters that Pence had let them all down. Smith laid out extensive arguments for why that post on Twitter should merit Trump’s prosecution.

After Trump’s Twitter post focused the enraged mob’s attention on harming Pence and the Secret Service took the vice president to a secure location, an aide rushed into the dining room off the Oval Office where Trump was watching television. The aide alerted him to the developing situation, in the hope that Trump would then take action to ensure Pence’s safety.

Instead, Trump looked at the aide and said only, “So what?” according to the brief.

In insisting that this post was an unofficial act, Smith noted that Trump’s advisers had been urging him to issue a message to quell the violence, but he had refused and instead tweeted about Pence.

“The content of the 2:24 p.m. tweet was not a message sent to address a matter of public concern and ease unrest; it was the message of an angry candidate upon the realization that he would lose power,” Smith wrote.

In the minutes before the tweet, Smith noted, Fox News had shown an interview with a protester marching toward the Capitol and expressing disappointment in Pence. It then reported that a police officer might have been injured and that protesters had broken into the Capitol.

That evidence “shows what social media and news the defendant privately reviewed in service of issuing a private tweet,” prosecutors wrote. “The government will not elicit testimony from the defendant’s staffers about his official deliberations, reactions to social media or television, or official actions taken in response.”

Several times, prosecutors drew a direct line between Trump and his supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. The brief describes how one of the attackers went to Washington that day because Trump “told us we had something big to look forward to” and how others wore clothes and carried flags pledging allegiance to him as they broke into the Capitol.

Smith, for the first time, implicated a podcaster and former Trump aide — who is identified in the brief as Person 1 and who resembles Steve Bannon — in the alleged plot to keep Trump in power.

The brief says that Person 1, who has not been charged in the case, played an integral role in the pressure campaign that Trump waged against Pence. Bannon is serving a four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify to the House select committee that investigated Trump’s attempts to retain power.

Smith’s brief also portrayed Trump and some of his allies — like his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani — as making wild claims about election fraud in public while other aides close to him doubted the same allegations in private.

In early December 2020, for example, Giuliani appeared at a hearing of state legislators in Georgia and proclaimed that as many 10,000 “dead voters” had cast their ballots in the race.

At that same moment, however, the brief contends, Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows and one of the former president’s lawyers were exchanging text messages doubting the assertion and sharing with each other that only 12 votes in Georgia had been attributed to dead people.

Smith also took readers of his briefs behind closed doors to show how Trump sought to sway state lawmakers to throw the election his way.

His brief, for instance, described a meeting in the Oval Office on Nov. 20, 2020, where Trump tried to convince the two top state lawmakers from Michigan that he had won the election. Joining them at the meeting was Giuliani; Ronna McDaniel, the chair of the Republican National Committee; and, at least for a while, Meadows.

When the lawmakers told Trump that he had lost the election in Michigan because he had underperformed with “educated females,” the brief said, Trump was not pleased.

The lawmaker could tell by Trump’s “body language,” the brief recounts, “that he was not happy to hear” the assessment.

One of the themes that Smith hit upon repeatedly was that top officials close to Trump tried over and over to persuade him to simply concede.

During a private lunch in mid-November 2020, the brief says, Pence suggested to Trump that he should accept defeat and run again in the next presidential race.

But Trump did not want to hear about it.

“I don’t know,” the brief quotes him as saying, “2024 is so far-off.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.