WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump and his campaign accused special counsel Jack Smith of violating longstanding Justice Department rules by including new revelations about the former president’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat in a filing released Wednesday.
In fact, a federal judge, not Smith, ordered the release of the document.
On Thursday, Trump called the release of the filing just a month before Election Day “weaponizing the government,” alleging that Smith and federal law enforcement improperly influenced the presidential election.
It’s true that the Justice Department typically observes an unofficial 60-day “quiet period” before an election, meaning they refrain from taking discretionary actions that could be seen as influencing voters. The new disclosures from the special counsel’s office were made in an ongoing criminal case ordered by federal judge Tanya Chutka, who ultimately decided to release the redacted plea on Wednesday.
Smith was unaware that Chutka would decide whether to release the document or the timing of its release, two sources familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, told NBC News.
Others have compared the October Surprise document to those of then-FBI Director James Comey. statements October 2016 about Hillary Clinton’s emails in favor of Trump. But the scenarios are completely different. In 2016, the director of the FBI made disparaging comments about a presidential candidate whose investigation did not lead to criminal charges. In 2024, a special prosecutor who secured three separate indictments against the former president from different federal grand juries released information in an ongoing criminal case ordered by a federal judge.
Chutkan has repeatedly made clear in court hearings that Trump’s presidential candidacy and campaign program will have no bearing on the criminal case against him, despite objections from the Trump team. The judge made the issue clear in his ruling last month, writing that Trump’s “concerns about the political ramifications of these proceedings do not belong on the pre-trial schedule.”
Chutkan, who regained control of the case after the Supreme Court ruled in August that Trump had immunity from certain official actions related to the case, ordered both Smith’s team and Trump to present their arguments on whether Trump’s conduct in the case was presidential. behavior was private.
Smith’s team chose to clean up the plate by getting an entirely new grand jury to return a new indictment against Trump without hearing testimony about Trump’s official actions, meaning mostly testimony about his attempts to weaponize the Justice Department for personal gain. It’s new indictmenthanded down in late August, the so-called 60-day rule was immediately thrown back out of the window based on about “long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions” that advise federal prosecutors not to take any action against a candidate immediately before an election.
Even with that new indictment, there were still many details to determine the boundaries of the case: what evidence is there, what evidence has emerged. The Supreme Court’s opinion left many of the fact-specific immunity determinations in the case up to Chutka, and written arguments would always be part of that process.
Chutkan set a Sept. 26 date for Smith to file his immunity opening brief, and because the brief and its appendix contained “sensitive material” such as grand jury and witness information, Smith had to file his brief under seal. did last week.
After hearing objections from Trump’s team to Smith’s team’s proposed redactions, Chutkan reviewed the brief and ultimately decided the redactions were appropriate. Chutkan also responded to Trump’s earlier complaints that he might violate the 60-day rule. writing On Sept. 24, his team can now explain “how this court is bound or has jurisdiction to enforce the policy of the Department of Justice.”
Trump claimed on his Truth Social account Thursday that the DOJ should have done “absolutely nothing” that could have interfered with the election 60 days ago. “They disobeyed their own rules in favor of complete and total interference in the election,” he wrote in a post. “I didn’t do anything wrong, they did! This case is a scam like all the others.”
The 60-day period does not apply to judges and generally does not apply to pending cases, although it is always discretionary for prosecutors to avoid certain actions even in pending cases. Justice Department veteran and NBC News legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg said Smith’s team is doing things by the book.
“In the case, charges were brought earlier. Litigating this case is Smith’s team’s responsibility and is not a violation of Justice Department guidelines,” Rosenberg said. “In any case, Smith’s team properly sealed their documents. The judge opened the seal correctly. It really doesn’t get any more complicated than that.”
Still, Smith’s decision to quickly seek a superseding indictment against Trump in August cannot be divorced from the reality that he and his team believe Trump is a four-felony felon in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election; has committed a repeat offense and has committed a criminal act that will punish him for a longer period of time; and Trump should serve this sentence in 2025, not in the White House. If Smith’s team had their way, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have gotten involved, and Trump would be in federal prison right now, or at least a convicted felon, and they’d be preparing sentencing documents for Chutkan as Election Day approached.
Trump’s campaign rhetoric about the Justice Department dates back to his time in office, while deeply offending federal prosecutors and undermining the institution and principles to which they have dedicated their careers.
Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department are similar to those highlighted by prosecutors in more than 1,500 criminal cases. January 6. defendantsthe types of comments that federal prosecutors argue show guilt and contempt for the law and therefore warrant longer sentences.