Jack Smith slams Trump’s motion to dismiss: 'The defendant stands alone in American history'

In a Monday evening filing, special counsel Jack Smith vociferously argued against former President Donald Trump's motion to dismiss charges in the Washington, DC case concerning his role in the January 6 insurrection.

The sprawling 79-page filing — which Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney posted to X (formerly Twitter) — not only argued against Trump's claims that the charges should be dismissed on constitutional grounds, but also methodically took apart the ex-president's legal arguments justifying his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

"The defendant stands alone in history for his alleged crimes," Smith wrote. "No other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Trump's lawyers argued that their client shouldn't be held criminally accountable for any alleged conspiracy to thwart voters' will, since the original results of the election were upheld. However, Smith's team countered that an unsuccessful criminal conspiracy is still a conspiracy — even at one point comparing the 45th president of the United States to a bank robber.

"[L]ack of success provides no defense... much less any basis to dismiss the charge," Smith argued. "Were it otherwise, defendants captured en route to a bank robbery could not be charged with conspiracy because their crime did not succeed. Indeed, a conspiracy can be committed even if the object of the conspiracy is unattainable."

Notably, Smith rejected Trump's First Amendment arguments in his filing opposing the motion to dismiss. The prosecution argued that because the former president made specific claims targeting government functions as part of a scheme to commit fraud, he couldn't hide behind the Constitution.

"Had the defendant done no more [than lie about the election], his statements pertaining to political matters of public importance would have remained protected under the First Amendment, even if false," Smith wrote. "But the defendant did not stop there... Speech used to commit 'fraud' and speech that is otherwise 'integral to criminal conduct' is not protected under the First Amendment."

READ MORE: Jack Smith just tore apart Trump's 'startling' absolute immunity argument

Trump is facing charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and witness tampering in the January 6 case. His trial in that case is scheduled for March 4, 2024.