Opinion: The latest charges against Trump paint an even more damning picture

Editor’s Note: Norman Eisen served as counsel to House Democrats in the first Trump impeachment and as White House ethics czar and ambassador to the Czech Republic in the Obama administration. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.

The remarkable new charges brought against former President Donald Trump in the federal classified documents case are absolutely necessary. Already facing 37 criminal charges, Trump now faces three additional charges – one count for willful retention of national defense information and two counts for obstruction of justice. He has denied all counts against him.

Many experts agree that special counsel Jack Smith already had a strong case. So, why would he bother to file a superseding indictment, adding a third defendant – Mar-a-Lago worker Carlos De Oliveira – at the risk of further delaying a trial that has already been pushed back by US District Judge Aileen Cannon?

A close look at the new charging document shows that the benefits to the special counsel and his case are well worth the costs in delay and otherwise.

Two parts of the original indictment – which alleged Trump violated the Espionage Act and obstructed justice – have been strengthened in the updated version. On the Espionage Act charges for retaining national defense materials, prosecutors have added an additional count based upon an Iran attack plan document that Trump allegedly shared with a book writing team at his Bedminster estate in July 2021.

Adding a charge focused specifically on this document allows prosecutors to center the case on this telling example of his alleged wrongdoing, making it more concrete and understandable. After all, there’s a big difference between Trump allegedly storing documents in a bathroom or a ballroom and boastfully showing one off to people who do not have the proper security clearances.

And prosecutors now have a much stronger legal basis to play the audio tape of Trump talking to the group about the document – and to show the jury Trump’s Fox News appearance falsely denying that he had any such document. With Trump unlikely to testify at trial because of the self-incrimination risk, those two tapes will let the prosecutors shape how the jury sees him – as one who is willing to disregard our national security rules and then lie about doing so.

Regarding the obstruction charges, prosecutors have added the details of the alleged Trump-led attempt to delete security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago. While the Justice Department already had powerful evidence on obstruction, this is a leap forward because it hammers home the extent of the degree to which he and his co-defendants went to conceal potential evidence from a jury.

This addition, an alleged surveillance tape conspiracy, almost reads like a spy novel. It features Trump employee and co-defendant Walt Nauta’s surprise clandestine trip to Florida. And it is followed by Nauta and the new co-defendant, De Oliveira, observing and pointing out the surveillance cameras, and then De Oliveria having a conversation about “the boss” wanting the IT server deleted. (Nauta and De Oliveira’s attorneys declined to comment to CNN.) Lest we miss the point, all of that is framed on either end of this new insert to the indictment with alleged calls from Trump to his new co-conspirator De Oliveira.

If the facts bear out as charged, this is slam dunk legal proof that also has a strong human dimension. Like the unflattering nature of the Bedminster tape and the Fox News appearance, a former president allegedly dragging two of his workers into a criminal scheme is an extremely unsympathetic look.

In truth, it’s not just that each of these charges strengthens the indictment, it’s also about the strength of the crossover effect. The newly persuasive details in each charge will add heft to the other charges. And in criminal trials, a rising tide lifts all boats.

That matters more here than it might in other jurisdictions. Smith likely will not have the easiest path ahead with Cannon, who has shown a propensity in the past to rule in the former president’s favor. More challenging still, the case will be tried before a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida. The jury pool will be drawn from areas which likely include many Trump supporters, who may or may not be able to assess the facts objectively.

And, then, of course there is the issue of a potential further trial delay. The complications stemming from the new defendant, new facts and new charges may well push back the current May 2024 trial date. Still, even if the judge relaxes the schedule, there remains some runway to begin the trial before the Republican National Convention next July and certainly before the general election in November 2024.

Trump will likely fight that, renewing his original wish to push the trial to after the election. But even if that happens, Smith has another card to play.

Trump announced last week that he is a target in Smith’s January 6 investigation in Washington, DC, which many see as a precursor to Smith ultimately charging him. If Trump is charged in the January 6 case, this allows Smith to try to get this DC case to trial in 2024. He may be able to argue to the DC court that the exact timing of the Florida documents case is now uncertain, and that the January 6 case should be on a parallel or even faster track, in case the Florida case does not happen in May.

While the success of that argument will depend on the judge Smith draws, the Washington, DC, federal judges (not to mention juries) are viewed as generally favorable to the special counsel’s case.

Finally, putting all of those legal questions to the side, the updated indictment tells us something important about the politics of all of this – namely that Smith doesn’t give a damn about them. For him to drop these new charges on a day when the political and media worlds were on the edge of their seat in the January 6 case shows that he’s put on blinders, charging straight ahead and doing his job as a prosecutor, irrespective of those external considerations.

That’s as it should be. His job is not to worry about the press, politics or the public (apart from his eventual juries). A more political prosecutor might have waited until after the dust cleared from the January 6 case to supersede, or not have done it at all – especially not in a week already marked by controversy over the federal prosecution of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son.

Smith is putting all that to the side – and remaining committed to, above all else, presenting the most powerful prosecution that he can to a jury. The updated indictment enhances the power of his case.

Smith has taken a strong hand and made it even better.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com