CNN
—

As Donald Trump faces another indictment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, some of his biggest allies are hoping an amended indictment will help them avoid professional consequences and criminal prosecution for roles they played almost four years ago.

Special counsel Jack Smith rewrote Trump’s federal indictment after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that the president cannot be prosecuted for “official actions” taken while in office. Smith not only narrowed the charges against Trump, but also removed references to communications between Trump and federal officials.

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark are now trying to use their former boss’s incomplete indictment to their advantage.

Trump is the only person charged in the federal case, but several of his allies and members of his administration face criminal charges at the state level for their interference after the last election, including Clark and Meadows. Clark and others also face professional disciplinary proceedings that could disrupt their ability to practice law.

Meadows, in particular, could benefit from Trump’s new indictment, which was filed in federal court last week. Meadows has been excised from much of the document, except for some interactions he had with Trump when the then-president tried to reach the Georgia secretary of state by phone to pressure him to help him with his election overturning gambit.

That has prompted Meadows’ lawyers to argue that he shouldn’t be prosecuted for actions he took while serving in the White House. He has been charged in Georgia and Arizona for trying to overturn election results in key battleground states. His main defense so far has been to seek to have the cases moved to federal court, which could make it easier for him to claim his own immunity.

“I don’t think that was Jack Smith’s intent,” a lawyer close to the case told CNN of the new indictment bolstering Meadows’ case. But the lawyer added, “that’s just how the case played out.”

Smith’s office declined to comment.

The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling does not provide protection beyond the president, but some legal experts say the decision’s ramifications naturally extend beyond Trump — even if those arguments ultimately fail.

“These are not legal arguments that are beyond the pale of plausibility or just good legal arguments,” said Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor of constitutional law at Georgia State University.

“But I think they are weak,” he added.

Meadows has already used changes in the new indictment in his criminal case in Arizona.

“Mr. Meadows’ case for transfer (to federal court) is supported by the superseding indictment filed this week by Special Counsel Jack Smith in United States v. Trump,” Meadows’ lawyers wrote in a court filing two days after the new indictment was unsealed.

The lawyers pointed to language Smith added to the indictment about the Georgia phone call, apparently to distinguish it from Meadows’ role as chief of staff. The new indictment says Meadows “at times handled (Trump’s) personal and campaign logistics.”

Meadows’ attorneys disputed that in the Arizona case.

“This is not an alleged crime committed by Mr. Meadows; as Chief of Staff, he was performing his official duties, even if the President was engaged in ‘off-the-books’ activities,” they wrote in court papers.

A federal judge in Arizona is set to consider Meadow’s arguments to move his criminal case to federal court during a hearing Thursday. An Arizona grand jury issued an indictment in April against Meadows and 17 other Trump associates in connection with their efforts to overturn the election. Meadows has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Two federal courts have already rejected Meadows’ request to have his Georgia charges moved to federal court. His request for the Supreme Court to hear the case remains pending.

Clark could also benefit from Trump’s new indictment.

While serving as an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department, Clark tried to push a letter to Georgia officials after the 2020 election calling on the state to interfere in the election results.

Although Clark was previously an unindicted co-conspirator with Trump in the Smith case, special prosecutors excluded him from the indictment entirely because the Supreme Court found he was acting as an official of the president.

Like Meadows’ legal team, Clark’s lawyer wasted no time trying to invoke the superseding indictment in his client’s favor. In a motion filed last week in the professional disciplinary process, Clark’s lawyer argued that it “strengthens Mr. Clark’s immunity and evidentiary arguments.”

“The issuance of a new indictment by a new grand jury effectively means that Mr. Clark is not only not indicted, but that he cannot be indicted,” his lawyer, Harry MacDougald, wrote.

Clark is also trying to move his criminal case from Georgia to federal court. That criminal case is currently on hold while a Georgia appeals court considers an attempt by some of the defendants to disqualify the Atlanta prosecutor who brought the case.

Several former Trump administration officials — including some who were compelled to testify before a grand jury more than a year ago or were described as witnesses in a previous indictment — were relieved that the new version of the indictment removed them and the allegations they faced, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

They hope that the new indictment will prevent them from having to testify publicly against the former president if his case goes to trial, the sources said.

Smith has been waging months of secret legal battles to force aides like former White House counsel Pat Cipollone to appear before a grand jury investigating Trump’s election overturn. Cipollone, who was described in the original indictment, is no longer named in the superseding indictment.

Some legal experts say the Justice Department may be less willing to pressure White House officials in future criminal investigations if prosecutors cannot use their testimony at trial.

Still, some witnesses, such as Meadows, could appear in court for Trump before the trial. Courts still need to determine whether some of Trump’s actions after the 2020 election were presidential — and therefore untouchable — or part of his campaign, and Trump allies could be called to testify.