The superseding indictment from Special Counsel Jack Smith tilts President Trump’s legal world on its axis, even as it reinforces the underlying peril for the 45th president, undaunted in his quest to retake the White House. 

Could Mr. Smith’s aggressiveness, though, play into Mr. Trump’s desire for a trial date after the 2024 election? Should he win, the Department of Justice, and potentially, the pardon power, would swim into the ken of his prerogatives.  

It’s been, after all, only days since Judge Aileen Cannon ordered that the trial in Florida be delayed until May. That’s more time than the prosecutor wanted but less than President Trump desired. No sooner was the date set, though, than the prosecutor added not only a new charge but a new defendant and, if the allegations are to be believed, fresh facts. 

The new defendant is a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago, Carlos De Oliveira. He joins Mr. Trump’s valet, Waltine Nauta, and the 45th president himself in staring down the barrel at the possibility of decades behind bars. 

While the bulk of the indictment is contained in the 37 charges that were handed up last month, this updated version underscores that Mr. Smith felt that there was more prosecutorial work to be done. The conspiracy he alleges now numbers three rather than two participants, meaning that two of Mr. Trump’s employees could break from him and cut a deal with Mr. Smith. Prosecutors could be positioning Mr. De Oliveira — and potentially Mr. Nauta — to “flip.”

This more aggressive charging document, though, could also boomerang on Mr. Smith’s push for an accelerated trial. Judge Cannon has already found that the “government’s proposed schedule” — Mr. Smith requested that jury selection begin in December — “is atypically accelerated and inconsistent with ensuring a fair trial.” She pointed to the still nascent case’s “voluminous” paper trail, classified and otherwise. 

Now that the case has grown, those concerns are likely to swell. Judge Cannon’s carefully calibrated schedule, which plotted out more than 30 deadlines before the beginning of a jury trial on May 20, will likely require revision. The evidentiary record now includes what prosecutors call a “presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country.” This is the “attack plan” document with respect to Iran — mentioned but uncharged in the initial version — that Mr. Trump is alleged to have shown visitors at his Bedminster estate.

The appearance of that record in the superseding indictment appears to contradict Mr. Trump’s claim that “there was no document” and that the tune of papers rustling overheard on an audio clip  — now in evidence as well — was generated by leafing through news clippings and building plans. The attack plan, now Count 32, was recovered on January 17, 2022, raising the question of why it was not previously charged.  

Mr. Smith, anticipating that an additional defendant and four additional charges could provide grounds for delay, filed a “notice” alongside the superseding indictment arguing that the additions “should not disturb the Court’s scheduling order.” He pledges to “promptly produce discovery related to the new obstruction defendant, allegations, and counts.” 

Appearing on a radio program hosted by John Fredericks, Mr. Trump averred that whenever a trial begins — or, possibly, a conviction is handed down — “there’s nothing in the Constitution to say that it could” stop him from running for, or holding, the highest office in the land.  

The charges against Mr. De Oliveira are a considerable expansion of the obstruction charges already looming over Messrs. Trump and Nauta. The original indictment centered on analog obstruction, or the moving of boxes between various rooms at Mar-a-Lago to evade federal agents and Mr. Trump’s own attorney, Evan Corcoran. 

In charging Mr. De Oliveira, though, the superseding indictment paints a more elaborate portrait of obstruction for the three defendants. It reports that Mr. De Oliveira told another employee “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,” a reference to Mr. Trump’s desire that security footage be erased. This allegedly occurred after a subpoena for it had been issued. 

Mr. Smith’s claim that Mr. Trump “requested” that footage of documents be moved  to “prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury” could be crucial to not only proving the charge that the defendants conspired to “alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal” evidence, but also to demonstrating the guilty state of mind that would be required to convict on the Espionage Act charges.

Mr. Trump, reflecting on his mounting legal woes, told Mr. Fredericks that “it’s always unpleasant when you have to go and tell your wife, ‘Tomorrow sometime I’m going to be indicted.’”