Special Counsel Jack Smith should not release any more evidence in the case against former President Donald Trump during early voting, defense attorneys told a judge in a filing Thursday.

Allowing Smith to release an addendum attached to a motion for presidential immunity that Judge Tanya Chutkan had already authorized Smith to submit in public record is “blatant and inappropriate election interference.” Trump’s lawyers said it would be a continuation of the deal. claimed.

“At this time, no further so-called “evidence” will be disclosed that the Office of the Special Counsel illegally cherry-picked and mischaracterized the 2024 Presidential Election during early voting in connection with the improper presidential immunity application. “should not be based on criminal procedure or case law,” his attorney wrote. “President Trump openly and improperly interfered in elections, violated long-standing Department of Justice policies, committed the Department of Justice’s previous security-related statements in this district and the Southern District of Florida, maintained grand jury secrecy, and potentially Prejudicial pre-trial publicity maintains dissenting opinion on grounds such as influence on witnesses and jurors.”This, as expected, followed the filing of a redacted “Motion for Dismissal.” . ”

Prosecutors previously indicated they would redact “the entirety of non-public classified material” in an appendix. (Related: Judge Chutkan releases Jack Smith’s extensive brief detailing evidence against Trump)

“The government also responds to some publicly available materials, such as defendants’ tweets, by identifying individuals who may be vulnerable due to their status as potential witnesses or involvement in the underlying events. “We also suggest limited redactions in cases where individuals are targeted or targeted, which may have a chilling effect on intimidation, harassment, or trial testimony.” I wrote In a Sept. 27 filing.

Over the objections of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Mr. Chutkan released a redacted version of Mr. Smith’s motion on October 2, detailing the evidence against Mr. Trump. In their motion, prosecutors explained why they believe the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling does not apply to the government’s allegations in the superseding indictment. Against Trump.

Mr. Chutkan has so far rejected claims by Mr. Trump’s lawyers that allowing Mr. Smith’s documents to be submitted would amount to election interference. In an Oct. 2 article, she criticized lawyers for “focusing on political rhetoric rather than addressing the legal issues at hand.” orderwrote that there is “no support” for their contention that the government is driven by partisan bias.

“That focus is not only unresponsive and unhelpful to the court, it is unbecoming of experienced defense counsel, and it undermines the judicial process in this case,” she wrote.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.