As former President Donald Trump gears up to face a D.C. jury on charges related to his alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election, the battle over whether the chaos and violence that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, should play a central role in his trial.
In a new court filing, special counsel Jack Smith’s team has made it clear that the mob that stormed Congress in Trump’s name will be the linchpin of their case. Smith contends that the events of that fateful day were not merely an unfortunate reaction to Trump’s provocative remarks but rather a tool employed by Trump in a last-ditch effort to maintain his grip on power.
“On January 6, 2021, lives were lost, blood was shed, portions of the Capitol building were badly damaged, and the lives of members of the House and Senate, as well as aides, staffers, and others working in the building, were endangered,” Smith asserted in the new court documents. “Yet publicly, the defendant has promoted and extolled the events of that day. While the violent attack was ongoing, the defendant told rioters that they were ‘very special’ and that ‘we love you.’ In the years since, he has championed rioters as ‘great patriots’ and proclaimed January 6 ‘a beautiful day.’ In this case, though, the defendant seeks to distance himself, moving to strike allegations in the indictment related to ‘the actions at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.’”
Trump has vehemently demanded that any information linking him to the Jan. 6 insurrection should not be admissible in the upcoming trial. According to Politico, calling witnesses like rioters Dustin Thompson and Danny Rodriguez to the stand could strengthen Smith’s case.
Thompson argued at his trial that his decision to maraud through the Senate parliamentarian’s office amid the chaos was a direct result of Trump’s remarks. Rodriguez, who buried a borrowed taser into the neck of D.C. Police Officer Michael Fanone on that day, has similarly contended that Trump’s lies about election fraud essentially brainwashed him.
“Indeed, that day was the culmination of the defendant’s criminal conspiracies to overturn the legitimate results of the presidential election when the defendant directed a large and angry crowd — one that he had summoned to Washington, D.C., and fueled with knowingly false claims of election fraud — to the Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification proceeding,” Smith emphasized.
“When his supporters did so, including through violence, the defendant did not try to stop them; instead, he encouraged them and attempted to leverage their actions by further obstructing the certification. Contrary to the defendant’s claims, then, the indictment’s allegations related to the actions at the Capitol are relevant and probative evidence of the defendant’s conduct and intent, and they are neither prejudicial nor inflammatory,” Smith concluded.
