Filings from special counsel Jack Smith have introduced never-before-seen evidence in the election subversion case against Donald Trump. This evidence, including interview transcripts and notes from an investigation involving key figures such as former Vice President Mike Pence, Ivanka Trump, and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, has now been submitted to a federal court.
District Judge Tanya Chutkan will now decide the extent to which this evidence will be made available to the public and the timing of such disclosures. The documents were filed under seal at 4:40 p.m. ET, according to Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel’s office.
The court submissions are anticipated to provide a comprehensive view of Smith’s case, which alleges that Trump conspired to defraud the United States by attempting to overturn his 2020 electoral defeat. Evidence is expected to comprise grand jury transcripts, FBI witness interview notes, and documentary evidence. This is part of an effort by prosecutors to ensure their revised indictment remains valid under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court’s decision requires prosecutors to persuade Judge Chutkan, and potentially higher courts, that Trump was not acting within his official capacity during the actions that led to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. It is likely the filings will explore Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence, which the Supreme Court suggested might fall under immunity.
The brief is also expected to detail findings regarding the January 6 Ellipse rally and Trump’s and his allies’ efforts to persuade state officials to reject the certification of the 2020 election results. Prosecutors plan to submit a version of the brief with proposed redactions, also under seal, which may eventually be published on the court’s public docket.
Special counsel Smith received permission to file a comprehensive brief up to 180 pages long, four times the standard length. This does not include the extensive exhibits meant to support their case. Prosecutors have noted that footnotes alone, referencing these exhibits, would span over 30 pages of the main brief.
Trump vehemently opposed the timing of Smith’s immunity brief, likening it to special counsel reports that typically remain undisclosed until the counsel’s work concludes. However, Judge Chutkan referenced the Supreme Court’s language in its July immunity ruling, asserting Trump had absolute immunity for actions related to his core executive duties.
For other official acts during his presidency, the Supreme Court established a ‘presumptive’ immunity that could be challenged if criminalizing such actions did not interfere with executive branch functions. Chutkan indicated that the Supreme Court directed a thorough and fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s detailed allegations.
The Supreme Court anticipated this analysis would require briefs that classify numerous interactions with state officials and private individuals, supplemented with detailed context not present in the indictment.
Trump’s legal team has until October 17 to respond to the prosecutors’ brief.
The ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the election subversion case against Donald Trump continue to develop, with District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s forthcoming decisions being pivotal in determining the extent of public access to the newly submitted evidence.
