Jack Smith is done messing around. In a new filing, the special prosecutor told the court in Trump’s election interference case that he’s about to introduce evidence that shows Trump’s “encouragement of violence” and his knowledge of “foreseeable consequences.”

That’s right: He knew what he was doing and he knew how it would turn out.

In what almost seems like a simple effort to make Trump need a change of underwear, Smith methodically laid out how he plans to outline Trump’s absolute complicity in the events surrounding his election fraud nonsense.

Smith even says that the new filing is not intended to “show the defendant’s criminal propensity, but to establish his motive, intent, preparation, knowledge, absence of mistake, and common plan.”

The outline in the filing for the courts was stark, and in six parts:

A. Historical Evidence of the Defendant’s Consistent Plan of Baselessly Claiming Election Fraud

B. Historical Evidence of the Defendant’s Common Plan to Refuse to Commit to a Peaceful Transition of Power

C. Evidence of the Defendant and Co-Conspirators’ Knowledge of the Unfavorable Election Results and Motive and Intent to Subvert Them

D. Pre- and Post-Conspiracy Evidence That the Defendant and Co-Conspirators Suppressed Proof Their Fraud Claims Were False and Retaliated Against Officials Who Undermined Their Criminal Plans

E. Pre- and Post-Conspiracy Evidence of the Defendant’s Public Attacks on Individuals, Encouragement of Violence, and Knowledge of the Foreseeable Consequences

F. Post-Conspiracy Evidence of the Defendant’s Steadfast Support and Endorsement of Rioters

That last bit is going to be hard for Trump to get past, too — he literally recorded a song with some of the people who are in prison for the crimes they committed on January 6.

Smith intends to introduce testimony from witnesses who will tell the court that they were retaliated against for not going along with the things Trump was saying. But more importantly, he intends to prove that this is still going on.

Smith will show that “evidence of the defendant’s encouragement of violence and the consequences of his public attacks is admissible to allow the jury to consider the credibility and motives of witnesses who may be the continuing victims of the defendant’s attacks.”

Examples included Trump’s encouragement of the Proud Boys and his attacks on Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss (who were put through absolute hell), among others:

(I)n response to a question during the September 29, 2020, presidential debate asking him to denounce the extremist group the Proud Boys, the defendant instead spoke publicly to them and told them to “stand back and stand by.” Members of the group embraced the defendant’s words as an endorsement and printed merchandise with them as a rallying cry. As discussed below, after the Proud Boys and other extremist groups participated in obstructing the congressional certification on January 6, the defendant made clear that they were acting consistent with his intent and direction in doing so.

Long after the charged conduct, the defendant continued to falsely attack two Georgia election workers despite being on notice that his claims about them in 2020 were false and had subjected them to vile, racist, and violent threats and harassment. As set forth in the indictment, during the charged conspiracy, the defendant and his co-conspirators spread knowing lies about the election workers and inspired death threats against them.

In late December 2022, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol published transcripts of its interviews with the election workers, in which the women provided graphic testimony about the threats and harassment they endured after the defendant and his agents falsely accused them. In apparent response, the defendant then doubled down and recommenced his attacks on the election workers in posts on Truth Social. He even zeroed in on one of the election workers, falsely writing that she was an election fraudster, a liar, and one of the “treacher[ous] . . . monsters” who stole the country, and that she would be in legal trouble.

The Government will introduce such evidence to further establish the defendant and his co-conspirators’ plan of silencing, and intent to silence, those who spoke out against the defendant’s false election fraud claims; the defendant’s knowledge that his public attacks on officials—like those on his Vice President as described in the indictment—could foreseeably lead to threats, harassment, and violence; and the defendant’s repeated choice to attack individuals with full knowledge of this effect. It also constitutes after-the-fact corroboration of the defendant’s intent, because even after it was incontrovertibly clear that the defendant’s public false claims targeting individuals caused them harassment and threats, the defendant persisted—meaning that the jury may properly infer that he intended that result. Finally, evidence of the defendant’s encouragement of violence and the consequences of his public attacks is admissible to allow the jury to consider the credibility and motives of witnesses who may be the continuing victims of the defendant’s attacks.

And then in the final section, Smith calls out Trump’s support for the Jan. 6 rioters — and the influence he had over them:

, the Government plans to introduce evidence at trial showing that in the years since the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the defendant has openly and proudly supported individuals who criminally participated in obstructing the congressional certification that day, including by suggesting that he will pardon them if re-elected, even as he has conceded that he had the ability to influence their actions during the attack.

Of particular note are the specific January 6 offenders whom the defendant has supported— namely, individuals convicted of some of the most serious crimes charged in relation to January 6, such as seditious conspiracy and violent assaults on police officers. During a September 17, 2023, appearance on Meet the Press, for instance, the defendant said regarding Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio—who was convicted of seditious conspiracy—“I want to tell you, he and other people have been treated horribly.” The defendant then criticized the kinds of lengthy sentences received only by defendants who, like Tarrio, committed the most serious crimes on January 6. Similarly, the defendant has chosen to publicly and vocally support the “January 6 Choir,” a group of defendants held at the District of Columbia jail, many of whose criminal history and/or crimes on January 6 were so violent that their pretrial release would pose a danger to the public. The defendant nonetheless has financially supported and celebrated these offenders—many of whom assaulted law enforcement on January 6—by promoting and playing their recording of the National Anthem at political rallies and calling them “hostages.”

Evidence of the defendant’s post-conspiracy embrace of particularly violent and notorious rioters is admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and intent on January 6—that he sent supporters, including groups like the Proud Boys, whom he knew were angry, and whom he now calls “patriots,” to the Capitol to achieve the criminal objective of obstructing the congressional certification. In addition, his statements in this time period agreeing that he then held, and still holds, enormous influence over his supporters’ actions is evidence of his knowledge and intent to obstruct the certification, as he chose not to exercise that influence to mitigate the violence on January 6. Perhaps most importantly, the defendant’s embrace of January 6 rioters is evidence of his intent during the charged conspiracies, because it shows that these individuals acted as he directed them to act; indeed, this evidence shows that the rioters’ disruption of the certification proceeding is exactly what the defendant intended on January 6.

And finally, evidence of the defendant’s statements regarding possible pardons for January 6 offenders is admissible to help the jury assess the credibility and motives of trial witnesses, because through such comments, the defendant is publicly signaling that the law does not apply to those who act at his urging regardless of the legality of their actions.

This is as exciting a turn of events as we could have hoped for.