Supported by
Judge Releases Redacted Trove of Evidence in Trump Election Case
The former president’s legal team had objected to any release of material, saying it would amount to election interference.
Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage write about legal affairs, including the criminal prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump.
A federal judge on Friday ordered the release of a heavily redacted trove of evidence supporting the contention by federal prosecutors that former President Donald J. Trump illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election.
In ordering the release, the judge was rejecting objections by Mr. Trump’s legal team that making even a largely blanked-out version of the material public now would constitute interference in the presidential election.
The materials — a four-part appendix to a lengthy brief recently filed by the special counsel, Jack Smith — consisted of 1,889 pages. But most of it was redacted and can only be seen by the parties involved in the case. The remainder appeared to consist almost entirely of previously released memos, social media postings, transcripts and other known materials.
Earlier this month, Mr. Smith had proposed releasing already public material like Mr. Trump’s social media posts from the post-election period, but blacking out nonpublic portions of sensitive files like transcripts of grand jury witness testimony. Mr. Trump’s legal team had asked the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington, to delay releasing the materials until after the election, citing its potential impact on voters.
But Judge Chutkan, in an opinion issued late Thursday, rejected that objection, hewing to her consistent line that she would pay no attention to Mr. Trump’s campaign schedule in making legal decisions. She also argued that withholding material the public otherwise had a right to see because of the pending election could itself be seen as manipulating voters.
“If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference,” the judge wrote.
The release of the appendix is the latest fallout from the Supreme Court’s ruling in July that presidents have some immunity from prosecution over their official actions. The court ordered Judge Chutkan to sort through the allegations and evidence in the indictment against Mr. Trump to decide what elements of the case would have to be cast out because of the immunity ruling and what could still be used in a future trial.
Mr. Smith submitted a lengthy brief describing the evidence he wanted to use, which Judge Chutkan made public this month. That brief contained new details that went beyond what was in the indictment, although it consisted mainly of additional texture rather than any major new allegations.
Mr. Trump’s legal team is scheduled to file its response to Mr. Smith, advancing arguments that the former president should be immune from prosecution on the election interference charges, on Nov. 7.
Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump. More about Alan Feuer
Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy. More about Charlie Savage
Advertisement
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment