US prosecutors have issued revised charges against Donald Trump for the former president's alleged attempts to interfere in the 2020 election after losing the contest.
The updated wording tries to navigate a Supreme Court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. The ruling had thrown this case into doubt.
Trump denies accusations that he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit a riot at the US Capitol to delay the certification of Joe Biden's victory.
The revised indictment, brought by Department of Justice (DoJ) Special Counsel Jack Smith, leaves in place the four crimes Trump is accused of committing: conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
But these now relate to Trump's status as a political candidate rather than a sitting president.
Trump has previously pleaded not guilty to all charges.
He wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform that the fresh indictment was "an effort to resurrect a 'dead' Witch Hunt" and "distract the American People" from this year's election. He called for it to be "dismissed IMMEDIATELY".
His campaign has not responded to a BBC request for comment. But a source close to his legal team told CBS News, the BBC's US partner, the second indictment "was not a surprise".
"This is what the government is supposed to do based on what the Supreme Court did," the source said. "It doesn't change our position that we believe Smith's case is flawed and it should be dismissed."
Navigating Immunity
The new charging document - which was slimmed down from 45 to 36 pages - re-works the language of the allegations to respond to last month's ruling on presidential immunity by the Supreme Court.
It argues Trump acted as a private citizen - and not as president - when he undertook the alleged scheme to sway the election.
“The defendant had no official responsibilities related to the certification proceeding, but he did have a personal interest as a candidate in being named the winner of the election,” reads one new line in the indictment.
Another new line refers to a lawsuit filed by Trump's campaign in Georgia. The old language said the suit was “filed in his name”, but the updated indictment says it was “filed in his capacity as a candidate for president”.
The new document also appears to have removed the charges against Jeffrey Clark - a former DoJ official who played a key role in the so-called fake electors scheme, according to prosecutors. Mr Clark was not named in either indictment, but has been identified in the media through public records.
The fresh indictment also drops the claim that Trump tried to pressure DoJ officials to work to overturn his defeat. The high court ruled Trump's direction to justice officials was not illegal.
Key Allegations Remain
The special counsel's office said the superseding indictment had been presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case.
A grand jury is set up by a prosecutor to determine whether there is enough evidence to pursue a prosecution.
The new indictment leaves in place several key allegations against Trump, including that he attempted to persuade Vice-President Mike Pence to obstruct Mr Biden’s election certification.
That is despite the fact that conversations between Trump and Mr Pence would probably fall under the category of "official" acts, for which Trump has immunity from prosecution, according to the Supreme Court ruling.
Legal Experts Weigh In
The revised indictment showed that Mr Smith interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to mean that his case could still move forward, said Prof Daniel Richman, a constitutional law expert at Columbia Law School.
But whether it would satisfy the Supreme Court's presidential immunity framework remained unclear, Prof Richman told the BBC. "The court was painfully vague as to what private conduct done by a president can be charged criminally," he said.
Trial Delay Likely
The revised indictment would not necessarily expedite the case, Prof Richman said. He doubted it would be heard before the 2024 election.
The CBS News source close to Trump's legal team said the former president's lawyers would ask for more time to prepare for the case. They said this would likely delay the start of the trial if the judge agreed.
Other Legal Battles
This case came together after Mr Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to oversee two federal investigations into Trump: the election interference case and another case in which the ex-president has been accused of taking classified documents back to his Florida home after leaving office.
On Monday, Mr Smith’s team appealed against the decision of a Florida judge to dismiss the latter case. Judge Aileen Cannon had done so on the grounds that the mere existence of special counsels violated the US Constitution.
Mr Smith argued the judge's view "deviated" from legal precedent.
Both cases face uncertain futures after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.
Other Legal Matters
The same is true of a separate case in Georgia, in which Trump and 18 other defendants are also accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his narrow defeat in 2020. He has pleaded not guilty, and a trial date has not been set.
Meanwhile, Trump awaits sentencing after being convicted in New York in May of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments made to a porn star.
Possible Pardon
If Trump defeats Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in November, he is widely expected to order officials to drop all the remaining federal charges that he faces.
The campaign is disputing reports of the incident, which stemmed from federal rules on filming military burial sites.
It was another blow after the court struck down his attempt to cancel as much as $400bn in loans.
The footage, turned over to Congress by HBO and obtained by the BBC, shows Ms Pelosi's evacuation during the riot.
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
Activists say the alleged incident decades ago may have broken conservation laws.
