Search Articles
WASHINGTON (CN) — Donald Trump demanded Tuesday that more redactions be made in a currently sealed 180-page brief by special counsel Jack Smith in his federal election subversion case, decrying the filing in an opposition memo as a “politically motivated manifesto.”
The filing comes as U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is tasked with deciding what parts of the filing can be made public, which is set to be the most extensive accounting of Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 electoral defeat prior to the looming 2024 election.
In Tuesday’s 7-page opposition memo, Trump, via his Washington lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche, argued that Smith’s proposed redactions in his immunity brief would wrongfully pose risks to potential witnesses involved in the case.
“The [special counsel’s] office wants their politically motivated manifesto to be public, contrary to the Justice Manual and longstanding DOJ norms in cases not involving President Trump, in the final weeks of the 2024 presidential election while early voting has already begun throughout the United States,” he said.
Further, the former president accused Smith of reversing course on their privacy and safety interests for witnesses that partially led to a gag order being imposed on both parties in the early stages of the case to prevent inflammatory comments about potential witnesses in the case.
He argued that Smith had suggested an inconsistent approach to “sensitive” materials, such as grand jury testimony, materials obtained via sealed search warrants, transcripts of witness interview and other material.
“Now that public disclosure serves their politically motivated mission, the special counsel’s office takes a different view. The office believes President Trump’s Constitutional rights to impartial jurors and fair proceedings — to say nothing of witness privacy and even safety — all take a back seat to the office’s political goals,” he wrote.
He pointed to the gag order, arguing that Smith sough to spread such protected material while preventing Trump from commenting on it.
While the gag order has not been an issue in Trump’s case since his case was first put on pause in January pending his immunity appeal, Chutkan had to repeatedly warn Trump that his inflammatory comments jeopardized the proceedings.
Chutkan’s warnings came as Trump was fined several times in his Manhattan civil fraud trial for calling posting photos of Justice Arthur Engoron’s clerk with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, calling her his “girlfriend” to paint the case and the court as politically biased against him. The posts opened the clerk and Engoron to a slew of online threats from Trump’s supporters.
Some of the sensitive information including in Smith’s opening brief include the names of witnesses other than those already identified in his superseding indictment, such as former Vice President Mike Pence.
Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, allowed Smith to submit the massive filing to help the court grapple with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision that former presidents at least have the presumption of immunity for actions taken while in office.
Trump has argued that the high court’s decision is grounds to dismiss his Washington case outright, but Chutkan has rebuffed that argument, finding the justices clearly instructed her to conduct a “close” and “fact-specific” analysis to find which of Trump’s actions were official or unofficial.
Prosecutors have said the main filing would include about 90 pages of new and previously disclosed facts explaining why Trump should still face trial following the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
In a previous filing, prosecutors Thomas Windom and Molly Gaston said they would not redact quotations or summaries of information from sensitive materials, but would blackout citations to their nonpublic sources. They clarified that such sources included grand jury transcripts, witness interview reports and sealed search warrants, which would be redacted entirely.
Trump will have an opportunity to submit a similar opposition memo by Oct. 10 against four documentary exhibits that are included in Smith’s overall immunity brief.
The filing is Smith’s latest bid to defend the criminal case from the Supreme Court’s sweeping immunity and is meant to lay out why the conduct included in his August superseding indictment can either clear the presumption of immunity or be considered unofficial acts.
Trump initially sought to prevent the filing outright, arguing it amounted to election interference with the Nov. 5, 2024, election day fast approaching. Chutkan has repeatedly rejected that argument, both in court and on the docket.
In a Sept. 24 order denying Trump’s objection, Chutkan emphasized that the looming election had no influence on how she treated the case.
“Defendants concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule,” Chutkan wrote.
She has consistently told Trump’s lawyers that in her courtroom, the former president is a criminal defendant and will be treated as such.
While is it unclear when Chutkan will decide to make Smith’s immunity brief public, it is expected to arrive near the end of October. The documentary exhibits, however, are unlikely to arrive before the election.
Follow @Ryan_KnappySubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.