Judge Tanya Chutkan denied former president Donald Trump’s request to withhold the rest of special counsel Jack Smith’s evidence, releasing the redacted documents Friday.
While Trump objected to releasing the materials so close to the election, Chutkan wrote it would be “election interference” not to publicly disclose the materials. Four heavily redacted appendix documents totaling over 1,800 pages were filed on the public docket, featuring public information like Trump’s tweets, communications records and portions of Jan. 6 committee testimony.
“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,” Chutkan wrote in an order Thursday night. “The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests.”
The DC court today continued the release of material from Jack Smith just before the election. https://t.co/o1Kvo5xPSo For many, it has the feel of oppo research given the timing. https://t.co/pOkAQ4ySeZ Even the judge called this “procedurally irregular” yet still ordered it.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 18, 2024
Chutkan also released Smith’s lengthy motion on presidential immunity earlier this month, which detailed the evidence he would introduce at trial. Smith argued that the allegations contained in the superseding indictment are not covered by the Supreme Court’s July decision finding former presidents immune from prosecution for official acts taken in office.
Trump’s attorneys objected to releasing any of the information, arguing it amounts to “overt and inappropriate election interference.”
“There should be no further disclosures at this time of the so called ‘evidence’ that the Special Counsel’s Office has unlawfully cherry-picked and mischaracterized — during early voting in the 2024 Presidential election — in connection with an improper Presidential immunity filing that has no basis in criminal procedure or judicial precedent,” his attorneys wrote in an Oct. 10 filing.
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Jack Smith, Fani Willis forced to defend Trump prosecutions in simultaneous testimonies - December 18, 2025
- Exclusive: Biden State Dept. appeared to ignore emails from would-be Trump assassin - December 16, 2025
- Trump DOJ seeks to block officials from testifying in Judge Boasberg probe - December 12, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
