Special Counsel Jack Smith did a lot of work on the indictments he had against Donald Trump, only for the Republican-controlled Supreme Court to declare Trump “immune” to much of it.

That’s a spit in the face to democracy. I’d say a boot to the groin, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg would roll over in her grave.

The fact is, we all know that Trump is guilty of everything that Smith charged him with. In fact, Trump’s argument in his defense was never even that he was innocent. Instead he argued that he had the right to break the law.

But, being much smarter than Trump (and obviously a few of the Justices on SCOTUS), Jack Smith did exactly what Trump hoped he wouldn’t do: He went ahead and filed new charges under a different set of descriptions that would find Trump guilty of the same things — without violating the “immunity” that the SCOTUS picks Trump installed gave him.

So what’s different this time, and why should you care?

Well, the second question is a lot easier and faster to answer than the first, so let’s start there. You should care because if we just let the immunity stand, he could conceivably win the presidency, then use the power of his office to overturn everything else he’s gotten in trouble for.

That means he could go back to doing business in New York, his kids could go back to stealing from children’s cancer charities, an he wouldn’t have to pay a dime to that woman he raped for lying about her for years.

He could overturn every one of the 34 felony convictions related to his payoff scheme in 2016 where he gave an adult film star money to keep quiet about the affair he had with her while his wife was pregnant with their son Barron.

As a side note, the most ironic thing to me about the hush money case is that he probably didn’t even need to do that in order to improve his chances in the election. His voters were already okay with the documented fact that he’d done that to two wives before Melania, and even bragged about being able to grope any woman he wants because he’s famous.

All before they cast their votes.

Anyway, now that we’ve got the why down, let’s move on to the what. There’s actually a lot of “what” here, but I’m not going to quiz you or anything, so take your time to unpack this stuff.

First of all, Jack Smith didn’t simply re-work the existing indictment. That never would have carried enough weight. Instead, he went to a brand new grand jury and secured a “superseding indictment” — one that, pardon the use of the word, trumps the old indictment.

And by getting a new grand jury, Smith ensures that Trump can’t complain in the future about the jury being tainted by having heard evidence from charges that were later protected by immunity. They only heard new evidence.

The biggest factor for the Supreme Court was whether or not Trump had carried out some of the deeds in the charges against him in his official capacity as president. Those acts, “official acts,” got immunity. And the number of evidence-based accusations that fell under that umbrella was quite large, since, you know, he was president. Even a Trump outing to one of his golf courses to play 9 holes could be called an “official act,” since a President is technically on call at all times.

So what Smith did was narrow the focus to charges for acts that would only benefit Trump personally, instead of something he could claim was in the interest of America. Trump may believe that him winning the 2020 election would have benefited the country, but even a 6-3 conservative majority would never rule that Trump can subvert an election just because he thinks the job should be his.

That’s definitely not an official act.

So Smith redlined the entire thing, and everywhere that the original indictment called Trump the president, Smith called him a candidate for president, who also happened to be the incumbent.

That’s a small but very important distinction. And while I normally am annoyed by pedantic nonsense, the way you tell someone it’s noon, and the nerd in the corner says, “Um, it’s 12:03,” in this case I’ll make an exception.

So are you confused yet? Let’s give you an example. Here’s what the original indictment said, followed by the new way it was phrased. This should give you a feeling not just for how hard Jack Smith has worked to bring justice to an unjust situation, but how good he is at it.

1. The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

2. Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeatedly and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

Okay, there’s the original. Now check out what Jack changed it to:

1. The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was a candidate for President of the United States in 2020. He lost the 2020 presidential election.

2. Despite having lost, the Defendant – who was also the incumbent president – was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant used his Campaign to repeat and widely disseminate them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

With some slight rewording, Smith has re-framed the entire argument as one against a guy running for president, who just happened to also already be the president. Therefore, none of the activities described in the rest of the document would be considered part of his official duties as president, but as undertaken by a guy who USED HIS CAMPAIGN to commit crimes in the furtherance of overturning the election.

Later on in the indictment, Smith uses phrasing to do something similar so he can include conversations that would be considered covered by immunity if they were just a president talking to, say, his vice president — but aren’t because Jack frames it as a candidate using his running mate, who happens to be (via the Constitution) the President of the Senate, to help him win through extralegal means.

Whew! That’s a mouthful. Or a pageful.

You don’t need to read the entire indictment to get the idea. You can, of course. It’s here:

The bottom line is, this is exciting — and it’s important. There could still very likely be prison on the horizon for Donald Trump, and that makes the whole world a better place.