Judge Releases Redacted Trove of Evidence in Trump Election Case
The New York Times
The former president’s legal team had objected to any release of material, saying it would amount to election interference.
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.
