"It doesn't matter if you won": Inside Jack Smith's latest Jan. 6 evidence

Special counsel Jack Smith's latest account of Jan. 6 is full of vivid new details depicting then-President Trump inflaming a violent insurrection despite knowing he had lost.

Why it matters: Smith and his team are pulling out everything they can muster to persuade the courts that their case against Trump should go forward.

• The special counsel's latest brief, unsealed Wednesday, is an effort to keep the case against Trump alive in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.
• Job No. 1 is to convince the courts that Trump's actions were the actions of a private person desperate to cling to power — not those of a president carrying out his official duties. And the additional evidence prosecutors put forward in their latest brief is designed to help make that arguments.

The new details: A White House staffer overheard Trump telling family members, "it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell," according to Smith's filing.

• The new filing says Trump responded "So what?" when he was told that Vice President Pence had to be evacuated from the Capitol.
• And it lays out a litany of evidence — some of it new, some familiar — that Trump knew he had lost.

The common theme in all of that new evidence is to draw a brighter line between Trump's personal and official conduct.

• A president acting in his official capacity would, presumably, care about the safety of the vice president. Telling family members that "it doesn't matter" whether he lost is "plainly private," Smith argues.

The other side: Trump's attorneys will have the chance to file a response to Smith's brief, but the most damning retort has already been written — by the Supreme Court.

• The high court blocked Smith from prosecuting Trump over his efforts to pressure Pence and his conversations with Justice Department officials, ruling that his communications with other federal officials constitute "official acts."
• And it laid out a broad definition of presidential immunity that Judge Tanya Chutkan will have to use as she decides how much of the rest of Smith's case — if any — can continue.

Chutkan's ultimate decision will likely be appealed, perhaps all the way back to the Supreme Court, which has already ruled against Smith once.

What to watch: Trump is again laying the groundwork to deny the results of the 2024 election, promoting a similar catalog of baseless fraud claims that Smith cites in his filing.

• Sen. JD Vance, Trump's running mate, refused in Tuesday's vice presidential debate to say whether he believed Trump had lost in 2020.