The filing is about the special counsel’s objection to a bid by Trump to access a wide swath of classified intelligence as part of his defense against charges that he conspired to subvert the 2020 election and remove millions -million voters, which culminated in the violent January 6 attack on the Capitol. Trump has argued that foreign governments are fueling his supporters’ concerns about the integrity of the election and that some classified evidence reveals potential interference that justifies his self-professed fears about fraud.
But prosecutors say Trump’s new legal effort is just an extension of his election lies — and that, in fact, intelligence officials have unanimously rejected the idea that foreign governments have infiltrated any systems that count votes or may alter the tally of the election itself. Instead, they said, intel officials documented some breaches of state voter registration databases that allowed various influence campaigns but did not trigger the vote-stealing scheme that Trump has long sought. to convince his followers.
Trump, Windom wrote, tried to create a “false impression” and “create confusion” by citing these “unrelated network breaches” and mixing them with potential changes in general. – the vote.
To refute these claims, Windom indicated that prosecutors asked “former DNI, former acting secretary of DHS, former acting deputy secretary of DHS, former CISA director, former acting CISA director, former CISA senior cyber counsel, former national security adviser, former deputy NSA, former chief of staff of the National Security Council, former chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, presidential intelligence briefer, former secretary of Defense and former DOJ leadership” for any evidence that the foreign or domestic actors refused a vote from a voting machine. in 2020.
They offered nothing, he said.
Windom also denied that Trump’s repeated efforts to portray partisan bias in the intelligence about the election denied that those doing the assessments were his own appointees, supported by the conclusions of a slew of intelligence agencies. intelligence. Windom also pointed out that a found example of bias was allegedly committed in favor of Trump by his own acting DNI.
Trump himself declared the election “virtually impervious” to foreign interference just days after the vote, before shifting his rhetoric, Windom notes. This view was shared by “every other knowledgeable official” in his administration, prosecutors said.
The filing also included a more detailed breakdown of Smith’s broader investigation than previously known, an effort to counter Trump’s contention that he needed access to a broader evidence than the millions of pages provided by prosecutors.
For example, Windom described subpoenaing materials and witnesses from the Secret Service and the CISA. That evidence included phone calls from Secret Service officials that prosecutors sought to mine for evidence to determine that there was nothing “to recover.” Prosecutors also emphasized that no current senior Justice Department officials are expected to testify at Trump’s trial.
Saturday’s filing adds to a collection of data points that reveal the wider aperture of Smith’s investigation.
In addition to the officials described in the new filing, Smith interviewed nearly every senior official in Trump’s West Wing, from Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to Vice President Mike Pence . He also obtained records from the National Archives, state governments and dozens of GOP leaders and activists involved in Trump’s effort to send slates of fraudulent presidential voters to Congress.
Prosecutors also revealed that they provided Trump with more details about the National Guard deployment on Jan. 6, including timelines of action that may not all have been made public.
Prosecutors also used the filing to push Trump’s contention that the charges against him conflicted with the Justice Department’s charge against the rioters on Jan. 6. There was nothing contradictory, they said, about the prosecutors. claiming that a January 6 rioter was responsible for his own criminal actions while noting that they took their cues from Trump.
And they resisted Trump’s bid for details about undercover agents or informants at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
“The defendant’s effort to blame law enforcement for the chaos in which they were victimized,” Windom wrote, “is far better than a bank robber’s attempt to blame the security guards who failed to stop his crimes.” .”