Former President Donald Trump’s legal team is pushing back against special counsel Jack Smith’s intent to publicly release evidence from Trump’s federal election subversion case.
Last week, Smith submitted a sealed 180-page brief detailing the government’s evidence against Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to four felony charges tied to his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results and the January 6 Capitol riot.
Smith’s recent motion seeks to make public documents like “grand jury transcripts, interview reports, or materials from sealed search warrants.” He plans to redact the identities of witnesses who could face potential intimidation from Trump’s supporters.
On Tuesday, Trump’s attorneys, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, filed a memo arguing against this motion, claiming that releasing “sensitive” information would result in a “politically motivated manifesto” being made public right before the upcoming November election.
Michael M. Santiago
The memo contends, “The true motivation driving the Special Counsel’s efforts is glaringly inappropriate,” accusing the office of wanting their “politically motivated manifesto” out in the open during crucial weeks of the 2024 Election as early voting begins nationwide.
In response, Smith quickly rebutted Trump’s claims, arguing that the plan to disclose evidence is based on established legal principles, not political bias. He stated, “The defendant’s claims of political motivation are unfounded and were also false when the Court dismissed his motion to drop the case based on selective and vindictive prosecution.”
Smith emphasized that his role is to enforce the law and that the Special Counsel’s office operates without partisan influence.
Recently, Smith has updated the indictment against Trump to align with a Supreme Court ruling that provides certain immunities to sitting presidents regarding their official actions.
Trump has labeled this legal battle a politically driven “witch hunt,” alleging that Smith aims to meddle in the 2024 election through his prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the case, has indicated skepticism about Trump’s argument for immunity based on his candidacy, stating during a contentious hearing that she is not concerned with the “electoral schedule.”