WASHINGTON (CN) — U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Donald Trump’s last-minute request to block the release of a new dossier in his election subversion case Thursday night.
The Barack Obama appointee had scheduled four new exhibits to support special counsel Jack Smith’s substantial immunity brief that was unsealed earlier this month.
Trump filed a motion Thursday morning requesting Chutkan push back the release date to Nov. 14, but she declined, noting she had delayed making the exhibits public for a week already to give Trump time to “evaluate litigation options.”
In her opinion rejecting Trump’s request, Chutkan indicated that the exhibits would be unsealed on Friday.
“Both sides’ filing will be publicly available (other than the necessary redactions), and whether potential jurors will be exposed to either of them, and in what order, is unknown,” Chutkan wrote, adding that the voir dire, jury-selection process, would address any such biases.
With the election less than three weeks away, the immunity brief and its exhibits have become the focus of Trump’s much-delayed Washington criminal trial and the only chance for the public to see the reams of evidence Smith has compiled against the former president and current candidate.
Trump requested the additional extension — for one week after election day — so that Smith’s appendix and his appendix can be released together. He began the 7-page motion by restating his objections to the brief and Smith’s superseding indictment in the first place and argued that allowing the public release of such evidence was “election interference.”
He targeted Smith’s 165-page filing, calling it cherry-picked and warning that it could spoil the pool of potential jurors and the public at large, leaving them “with a skewed, one-sided and inaccurate picture of this case.”
She also rejected his assertion of election interference, writing that any public understanding of the case will only improve with more available information.
Chutkan added that Trump is welcome to present his opposing arguments and evidence before the Nov. 5 election.
Trump had pointed to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ immunity opinion, where the George W. Bush appointee justified granting presidents wide-reaching immunity as meant to avoid a chilling effect on the “bold and unhesitating action required of an independent executive.”
Chutkan did not agree that any chill would come from releasing the filings separately nor that there was any connection to the ongoing presidential campaign. She explained that any acts “as a candidate for office” are unofficial and do not implicate immunity.
“There is undoubtedly a public interest in courts not inserting themselves into elections, or appearing to do so,” Chutkan said. “But litigation’s incidental effects on politics are not the same as a court’s intentional interference with them.”
The public has a right to view the evidence in this case, Chutkan said, and granting Trump’s request would either look like, or be, election interference itself.
It is unclear how much of Smith’s dossier will be public, but the immunity brief laid out an expansive factual record that detailed much of Trump’s actions after his 2020 electoral defeat and in the lead up to Jan. 6, 2021.
While many of the details included in the brief were already in the public record, Smith described how Trump spread and used false claims of election fraud to justify his legal battles and pressure campaigns in swing states, even before the election itself.
With more than 80 redacted names included, Smith highlighted Trump’s web of private lawyers and advisers whom he worked with in his unofficial capacity and as a candidate in his efforts to hold onto the presidency. The names have largely been uncovered — reporting revealed that “Person 1” was Steve Bannon, who had not been featured much previously in the case — and indicate Smith has reams of documents and conversations involving Trump.
The brief also heavily featured former Vice President Mike Pence and Trump’s efforts to pressure him into following his “Green Bay Sweep” scheme, where Pence could use his ceremonial role as President of the Senate on Jan. 6 to certify a false slate of electors and hand Trump victory.
On Wednesday, Chutkan granted Trump’s request that Smith search for any evidence he had from Pence’s classified documents probe, agreeing that they could reveal any “incentive” he may have had to cooperate with Smith’s investigation. As a potential witness in any trial, she found such evidence relevant for Trump’s defense.
Trump has vehemently argued that his communications with Pence should be deemed official conduct, citing the Supreme Court’s decision that his efforts to enlist the Justice Department in his scheme were immune, as such communications struck at the core of the executive’s core duties.
Smith has argued that the communications between Pence and Trump are not the same, highlighting the fact they centered on Pence’s ceremonial role, where he is effectively a part of the legislative, rather than executive branch.
The immunity debate will continue at least until Dec. 5, when Chutkan has scheduled for Trump’s final reply. That leaves her a little over a month before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.