“Nail in the coffin”: Legal experts say aides’ new testimony is “kryptonite” for Trump’s defense

New evidence obtained by special counsel Jack Smith from Donald Trump’s former aides could be “kryptonite” to the former president’s defense in the D.C. election subversion case, legal experts say.

Trump “was just not interested” in stopping the violence on Jan. 6, longtime aide Dan Scavino told Smith’s team, according to ABC News. “So what?” Trump asked when told that then-Vice President Mike Pence had to be moved to a secure location, former aide Nick Luna told prosecutors.

“The new evidence will be kryptonite to Trump’s hopes for avoiding a conviction,” former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut wrote in an op-ed at Slate.

“Trump’s reported statements are loaded with cruelty, self-interest, and abandonment of allies. It becomes indisputable that he was using his most violent followers to try to override the voters’ will and keep himself in power,” Aftergut argued.

A Trump campaign spokesman said in a statement that the “media fascination with second-hand hearsay shows just how weak the Witch-Hunt against President Trump is.”

“This hearsay claim is 100 percent wrong,” Aftergut asserted. “What witnesses told Trump and what he told them are not “hearsay” because the statements will not be offered in court to prove the truth of what they assert. Only statements offered for that purpose meet the legal definition of hearsay and are barred from being heard by jurors in criminal proceedings.

“The introduction of such testimony from Trump’s closest aides establishes his criminal intent and should seal his fate in the trial to come,” he added.

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC that the testimony goes to the heart of Trump’s intent.

“[I]f you think of it through the vantage point of the prosecution, the one thing that Trump could maybe try through surrogates to claim at trial is, ‘It took him by surprise. He never knew this would happen.’ You’ve heard claims of that. It seems dubious,” Litman said in a clip posted by Mediaite.

“It is very, very powerful evidence if you look at it through the prism of what Jack Smith has to prove at trial,” he added. “It pretty much is a nail in the coffin of Trump’s intent.”

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, was asked what else Smith needs to learn about Trump’s actions on Jan. 6.

"Based on the reporting, nothing," Weissmann said. "What he needs is a trial date that sticks. This is a very strong case."

The former prosecutor noted that Smith would have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

"So I don't want to say this is what's going to happen," he said. "But in terms of the strength of the case...this is a strong case, seeing the Dan Scavino reporting, assuming that's accurate, that's another nail, but there are many, many nails that he has."