Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, the federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case, issued an order Thursday approving the release of redacted source documents that provided special counsel Jack Smith with potentially incriminating material on the former president’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Much of the information in those documents was used by prosecutors in a 165-page legal brief arguing that the Trump should still be prosecuted despite the Supreme Court ruling this summer that granted him broad immunity.
Trump now has a seven-day window to challenge the release of papers, which could further incriminate him in the public eye as the 2024 election enters its closing stretch.
The documents consist of a four-part appendix listing the sources of the quotes Smith used in his brief, as well as information detailing the legal pathways to prosecuting Trump even after the Supreme Court ruled that he was immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. Federal prosecutors have subsequently argued that while Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election results during his presidential term, he committed those acts in his private capacity as a candidate, not as president. In the filing last week, prosecutors described the crux of their case against Trump, who they said “launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost.”
Public material like witness transcripts from congressional Jan. 6 hearings could be revealed in the documents, but most nonpublic sources, including grand jury transcripts and sealed search warrant returns, would likely stay redacted.
Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche earlier asked Chutkan to keep the appendix out of sight, writing that “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.”
Chutkan was not persuaded by that argument, writing in her two-page order that Trump’s legal team provided “no specific substantive objections to particular proposed redactions,” their “blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit” and their concerns over its effects on Trump’s chances of winning the 2024 election “is not a cognizable legal prejudice.”
No trial date has been set, with many observers anticipating that the case could end up back before the Supreme Court. Trump, who has repeatedly called the case a sham and act of election interference, is widely expected to order the Justice Department off the case if elected president.
