Former President Donald Trump‘s legal team has hit back at special counsel Jack Smith‘s plans to publicly release evidence from the former president’s federal election subversion case.
Smith filed a sealed 180-page brief last week containing the government’s evidence against Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to four felony charges related to attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss and to the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack that followed.
The special counsel submitted a motion on Friday to publicly release evidence like “grand jury transcripts, interview reports, or material obtained through sealed search warrants.” Other information, such as the names of witnesses who could be “intimidated and threatened” by Trump supporters, would be redacted.
On Tuesday, Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche filed a memo opposing Smith’s motion, urging the court to keep “sensitive” information under seal while arguing that the special counsel wanted to release a “politically motivated manifesto” shortly before the November presidential election.
Former President Donald Trump is pictured during a campaign stop in Valdosta, Georgia on September 30, 2024. Trump’s legal team on Tuesday filed a memo opposing special counsel Jack Smith’s plan to release evidence in the ex-president’s election subversion case, which they claim is a “politically motivated” move.
Michael M. Santiago
“The true motivation driving the efforts by the Special Counsel’s Office to disseminate witness statements that they previously sought to lock down is as obvious as it is inappropriate,” the Trump filing reads.
“The Office wants their politically motivated manifesto to be public…in the final weeks of the 2024 Presidential election while early voting has already begun throughout the United States,” it continues.
Smith quickly filed a reply to the Trump team’s memo, dismissing the accusation of political motivation and insisting that his plan to release the evidence was “rooted in a faithful application of binding D.C. Circuit case law.”
“The defendant’s opposition includes his standard and unsupported refrain that the Government’s position is motivated by improper political considerations,” Smith wrote. “That allegation is false—just as it was false when the Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution.”
“The Special Counsel’s mandate is to uphold the law,” he added. “It has no role or interest in partisan politics and has faithfully executed its prosecutorial duties in this case.”
Newsweek reached out for comment to Lauro and Blanche and the office of Smith via email on Tuesday night.
Smith filed an updated indictment of Trump late last month, retooling the case to comply with the Supreme Court‘s recent ruling granting immunity to sitting presidents when conducting certain “official” acts.
Trump claims to be the victim of a politically motivated “witch hunt” and has repeatedly accused Smith of attempting to “interfere” in the 2024 presidential election by prosecuting him.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, has already indicated that she may be unlikely to agree with legal arguments that Trump should not be prosecuted because of his status as a presidential candidate.
Chutkan explicitly said that she was “not concerned with the electoral schedule” during a contentious exchange with Lauro at a hearing on the case schedule early last month.
