Americans would be well advised to take a few minutes, or longer, to read the legal brief filed by special counsel Jack Smith, most of which was unsealed on Wednesday. At 165 pages, the redacted version available to the public is quite a bit to review, but there are plenty of attention-grabbing moments. Among them is a line eerily reminiscent of the infamous quote credited to Marie Antoinette. When told that the peasants had no bread to eat, the queen of France allegedly responded, “Let them eat cake.” In Smith’s investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection, the near-equivalent was President Donald Trump’s response to an aide’s warning that rioters had stormed the U.S. Capitol and Vice President Mike Pence, there to certify the election results, might be in danger.

“So what?” Trump reportedly said from his comfy seat in the Oval Office dining room.

It takes a certain level of indifference to the suffering of others, a lack of moral or legal bearings and, above all, a degree of outright narcissism to pose such a question under those circumstances. But, yet, that sounds about right from all that has been reported about the events of that day by investigators, former Trump aides and just about anyone who witnessed the 45th U.S. president’s failed attempts to reverse the will of the voters. Lie about voting machines? Check. Engage in criminal conspiracies? Done. Keep claiming election fraud, no matter the overwhelming evidence against that theory? Do you even have to ask at this point?

Anyone reading Smith’s collection of compelling evidence is bound to ask themselves how the greatest nation on the planet found itself in such a circumstance. Part of the blame is that Smith’s prosecution has been delayed. The trial should have already been conducted. But the U.S. Supreme Court said no. The high court decided to set the whole matter aside for most of a year while considering Trump’s claim of immunity. Was he acting as president or as a candidate when he sought to overturn the 2020 election result? This takes months to answer? Even now, it’s unclear how far Smith’s case can go given the Supreme Court’s expansive view of immunity.

Still, the court of public opinion should not be so easily sidetracked. The events of that day (and many others related to Trump’s inexcusable post-election conduct) ought to be regarded as disqualifying. And, indeed, patriotic Americans — including many Republicans — ought to be talking about this shameful moment over and over again until Nov. 5. That U.S. Sen. JD Vance was allowed to essentially sidestep his views on the matter in the recent vice-presidential debate — his refusal to even admit that Trump lost in 2020 — might have been his Democratic opponent’s biggest failure on that New York stage.

Here’s another measure of the importance of Smith’s legal brief: Trump was so outraged by it that he immediately went to social media to make untrue claims and distract, distract, distract. He described the “falsehood-ridden, Unconstitutional J-6 brief” as “another obvious attempt by the Biden-Harris regime to undermine and Weaponize American Democracy, and INTERFERE IN THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.”

How is it that American voters have been presented with talking points about the vice president’s racial heritage, about the worthiness of women who don’t birth children, about alleged pet consumption in Springfield, Ohio, and on and on, but when it’s time to make some judgment about whether Trump can be trusted with accepting election results and upholding the U.S. Constitution, somehow it’s all a grand conspiracy against him? Are voters falling for this? Has the former president’s wild-eyed response caused Americans to simply avoid the topic or to doubt reality? Read as much of the brief as you can and draw your own conclusions. There’s too much at stake to look away.