Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to unseal Special Counsel Jack Smith’s evidence attached to the 165-page ‘opening brief’ which was already used to attack President Trump.
This is Jack Smith’s dirty October surprise.
Trump’s lawyers earlier Thursday asked Judge Chutkan to keep Jack Smith’s evidence appendix from public view.
President Trump’s lawyers argued in a two-page filing that Jack Smith was trying to interfere in the election by publicly docketing more evidence in the January 6 case.
“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,” Trump’s legal team wrote.
Judge Chutkan immediately denied Trump’s request on Thursday afternoon and agreed to unseal Jack Smith’s evidence.
Chutkan once again reiterated the election is of no consideration to her but she stayed (paused) her decision for 7 days so Trump’s lawyers “can evaluate litigation options.”
UPDATE: As expected and with the ink barely dry on Donald Trump’s request to prevent the public docketing of Jack Smith’s unsealed evidence appendix to his massive immunity motion, Tanya Chutkan denies the request, reiterates the election is of no consideration to her, and then… pic.twitter.com/zzsWtoIUvu
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) October 10, 2024
Judge Chutkan earlier this month unsealed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 165-page “immunity motion” arguing that Trump is subjected to presidential immunity following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Chutkan unsealed the 165-page monstrosity to do the maximum damage to Trump before the election.
Jack Smith rejected Trump’s claims of immunity and said his actions on January 6 were “private.”
“The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted—a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role,” Jack Smith wrote in the motion reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
Jack Smith also accused Trump of inciting a riot.
According to Jack Smith’s dossier, an unidentified Trump aide messaged, “Let them riot” and “Do it!!!” in response to a colleague suggesting there would be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot.
Jack Smith never charged Trump with with inciting a riot because no evidence exists.
The only reason why Jack Smith included the “riot” message from a Trump aide in his dossier is to attack Trump before the election.
