Former President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday he could soon be indicted for the third time since March, this time related to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Trump said in a statement posted to his Truth Social platform that his lawyers received a letter from federal prosecutors identifying him as a target in their investigation. 

The former president also faces state charges in New York of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels as well as federal charges, also brought by Smith, of retaining national defense documents after his presidency and obstructing the government’s efforts to recover them.

Trump, who continues to falsely claim the 2020 election was stolen, has painted the investigations as politically motivated attempts to derail his 2024 presidential campaign. 

“THIS WITCH HUNT IS ALL ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND A COMPLETE AND TOTAL POLITICAL WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT!,” he wrote Tuesday. “It is a very sad and dark period for our Nation!”

Smith’s office has been tight-lipped about its investigations and has not commented since the former president revealed he received the target letter.

If Trump is indicted again, it’s unknown what specific charges he would face. But the findings of the now-disbanded House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and the events that led up to it, as well as news reports and opinions from legal experts and a federal judge, could provide clues.

Here are five potential charges that might be under consideration:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

The statute makes it illegal for two or more people to “conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.”

Last week, a group of legal experts, including criminal defense lawyers and former federal prosecutors, published a model prosecution memorandum and concluded “there likely is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction of Trump” on three charges, including conspiracy to defraud the country.

The House Jan. 6 committee also included the charge in its criminal referrals to the special counsel earlier this year. And Federal District Court Judge David Carter ruled last year that evidence supports that Trump and one of his attorneys, John Eastman, “more likely than not” conspired to defraud the United States.

The legal experts allege in their memo that Trump knew he lost the election but worked with others on a “wide variety of schemes to change the outcome,” including by creating fraudulent election certificates that were submitted to Congress.

The Jan. 6 committee cited a plot by Trump and his allies to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to block certification of the results in Congress, which Carter also referenced in his ruling. The committee said testimony it received indicated Trump and Eastman knew Pence did not have the authority to reject the results.

And Trump and his conspirators repeatedly lied about election fraud despite being told by the president’s advisers there was no evidence to support his claims and losing dozens of legal challenges, the panel said.

Obstruction of an official proceeding

The part of this law that could potentially apply to Trump relates to “conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings,” including in Congress.

This was the second offense of which the legal experts said there is sufficient evidence for a conviction. It also was included in the Jan. 6 committee’s criminal referrals, and Carter wrote that the evidence points to Trump “more likely than not” having “corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

That day, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, sending lawmakers who convened to vote on certifying Joe Biden’s election victory scrambling to safety. The riot followed a nearby Trump rally, which the then-president had urged his supporters to attend. There, he repeated false election fraud claims, telling the crowd, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” and then directing them to march toward the Capitol.

The Jan. 6 committee said in its report “there should be no doubt that President Trump knew that his actions were likely to ‘obstruct, influence or impede’ that proceeding.

The panel said Trump attempted to prevent or delay the counting of lawful certified Electoral College votes from multiple states and was directly involved in pressuring Pence not to certify Biden’s win. In their memo, the legal experts, who include former Obama White House ethics official Norman Eisen, also cited a plan to use slates of so-called fake electors to obstruct the certification process.

Obstructing an official proceeding is the same offense with which the Justice Department has charged at least 294 defendants accused of entering the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Incitement of an insurrection

This federal law states that someone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto” could be imprisoned or fined. Notably in Trump’s case, it also states that anyone convicted of violating the statute “shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

The Jan. 6 committee said in its report that Trump “was directly responsible for summoning what became a violent mob to Washington, DC, urging them to march to the Capitol.” The panel also said Trump’s tweet amid the chaos calling out Pence for not blocking certification further incited the crowd.

The committee noted that the charge does not require evidence of any agreement between Trump and the rioters. 

While the legal experts behind the memo said there is sufficient evidence to pursue the incitement charge, they noted that it is rarely charged and the Justice Department will likely be cautious about potentially bringing it. 

Conspiracy to make a false statement

This statute prohibits anyone “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” from making “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.”

The Jan. 6 committee, which included the charge in its criminal referral to the Justice Department, alleges Trump “conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives.”

In a separate case, Michigan charged 16 people Tuesday with signing certificates falsely claiming Trump won the state in 2020. Each suspect was charged with 16 felonies, including forgery election law forgery, publishing a counterfeit record and related conspiracy offenses.

Wire fraud

The wire fraud statute relates to anyone who devises or participated in a scheme to defraud someone out of money while using interstate telephone calls or electronic communication.

The Washington Post reported last month that Smith’s investigators have looked extensively at ads and email pitches that raised money off Trump’s baseless election fraud claims.

Additionally, the Jan. 6 committee alleged the Trump campaign used election lies to convince supporters to donate to a fund to help pay for legal challenges to the vote results, but no such fund actually existed. Instead, the money was spent on other purposes, including on companies that are known affiliates of Trump, the panel said. 

“The Big Lie was also a big rip-off,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said during a Jan. 6 committee hearing in June 2022.