Yesterday, Special Counsel Jack Smith secured a superseding indictment in the classified-documents case against Donald Trump and his aide Waltine Nauta in federal court in Florida. The revised indictment adds a new defendant, Carlos de Oliveira, a property manager at Mar-a-Lago, as well as two new obstruction-of-justice counts for attempting to “alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence.” The new charges stem from allegations that Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira together attempted to delete surveillance-video footage at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2022. This all allegedly occurred amid the FBI’s attempts to secure the return of a huge quantity of classified documents that Trump took from the White House—a frustrated effort that culminated in the government’s execution of a search warrant at the property on August 8.

The superseding indictment also adds a new count under the Espionage Act related to a document marked top secret and identified as a “presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country,” which Trump is described as waving around to people without security clearances at his Bedminster, New Jersey, club. It also charges de Oliveira with repeatedly lying to the FBI when asked about his knowledge of the boxes stored and moved around at Mar-a-Lago.

The case is only getting more damning for Trump.

[David A. Graham: This indictment is different]

Recall that the original indictment alleged that in May 2022, Nauta removed—at Trump’s direction—64 boxes of documents from “the Storage Room” at Mar-a-Lago. Nauta removed 11 more boxes on June 1, according to the indictment. Several photographs depicting stacks of disheveled boxes—one with what looks like a copy machine nearby—were reproduced in the indictment. The new obstruction charges involve the storage room and nearby security cameras, which could have picked up footage of people moving boxes after Trump’s lawyers claimed to the FBI on June 3, in a certified statement, that Trump had returned everything in his possession.

The superseding indictment alleges that Trump orchestrated a failed attempt to destroy the surveillance-video footage the day after he learned from his lawyer, on June 22, that they were expecting a grand-jury subpoena for production of “any and all surveillance records, videos, images, photographs and/or CCTV from internal cameras,” including from the “ground floor (basement).” On June 23, Trump called de Oliveira and spoke with him for 24 minutes. The subpoena was issued on June 24. The same day, a staff member texted Nauta, who was at Bedminster, that Trump wanted to see him. In less than two hours, Nauta changed his plans to travel to Illinois, instead heading to Mar-a-Lago. On June 25, Nauta and de Oliveira went to the ground-floor basement, “with a flashlight through the tunnel where the Storage Room was located, and observed and pointed out surveillance cameras.”

On June 27, after confirming that the club’s IT director, referred to as “Employee 4” in the indictment, was available, de Oliveira walked with that person through the basement tunnel, where they had a conversation meant to “remain between the two of them.” De Oliveira told him that “‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted.” Employee 4 refused, saying that he would not “have the rights to do that.” De Oliveira responded, “What are we going to do?”

Later that day, according to the indictment, Nauta and de Oliveira “walked through the bushes on the northern edge of The Mar-a-Lago Club property to meet.” Approximately two hours later, Trump called de Oliveira “and they spoke for approximately three and a half minutes.” Later in the summer, two weeks after the FBI conducted its search (it obtained the surveillance footage in July, and the warrant was issued in early August), Nauta called another Trump employee, saying, “Someone just wants to make sure Carlos is good.” The employee responded that de Oliveira “was loyal” to Trump, who called de Oliveira “the same day” and told him that he’d get him an attorney.

A few things jump out from this narrative, all of which are bad for Trump. The attempt to erase the video footage occurred in direct response to a grand-jury subpoena for the video footage—not prophylactically, routinely, by mistake, or for some other noncriminal reason. This is a big deal for purposes of proving the crime of obstruction, and Trump’s role and influence in the effort to destroy potentially incriminating evidence of interest to a federal grand jury is unmistakable. The fact pattern also bolsters the government’s case that Trump’s efforts to induce others to hide and tamper with evidence were made “knowingly” and “with intent” under the relevant obstruction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2). (The new Espionage Act charge also blows apart Trump’s claim to the Fox News host Bret Baier that there “was not a document per se” involved in the audio recording of him discussing what appear to be military war plans with folks lacking security clearances.) Meanwhile, the superseding indictment rests on a stream of corroborating evidence—including, according to the indictment, surveillance-video footage; the testimony of several employees; and a trove of text messages and phone records between the key players, among them Trump himself.

The Mar-a-Lago case is one of two criminal trials Trump is facing so far—the other was brought by the Manhattan district attorney over alleged financial wrongdoing—with at least two more possibly impending, including one stemming from Trump’s involvement in the violent attempt to thwart the peaceful transition of presidential power on January 6, 2021, and another out of Fulton County, Georgia, over his recorded effort to sway the Georgia secretary of state to “find” enough votes to swing that state into his electoral column. In all of these cases, prosecutors’ task is unique in that the defendant is a former president of the United States and the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2024—both historical firsts. Criminal juries must be unanimous in Manhattan and in federal court, so Trump’s legal team need only secure a single loyalist who will not convict in order to achieve an acquittal.

[David A. Graham: Donald Trump’s ‘horrifying news’]

Which is why it’s significant that the narrative underlying the new obstruction charges is so compelling. The tale is reminiscent of the hero’s journey in mythology and literature that was first articulated by Joseph Campbell in 1949 and that underpins countless Hollywood blockbusters, from The Lord of the Rings to Harry Potter. In this narrative, Employee 4 emerges as the hero who rejected Trump’s villainous urges and then came forward with the truth, at his own peril. Prosecutors and law-enforcement officials involved in the case have already faced substantial threats and harassment, both online and in person. Trump last week called Jack Smith “deranged.” Let’s hope this story ends well for the good guys.