Scorching Jack Smith filing vows to “expose” Trump’s “mischaracterizations and baseless arguments”

Smith calls out Trump team's "distortions of the factual and legal landscape in their motions"

By Igor Derysh

Managing Editor

Published January 19, 2024 12:25PM (EST)

Special Counsel Jack Smith and Former U.S. President Donald Trump (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)
Special Counsel Jack Smith and Former U.S. President Donald Trump (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team on Thursday pushed back on former President Donald Trump’s attempt to gain access to intelligence community materials in the Florida classified documents case, arguing Trump lawyers’ filing is "replete with mischaracterizations and baseless arguments."

"The Government supports full transparency of the record consistent with witness safety, national security, and the court's protective order, in part because that transparency will expose the defendants' distortions of the factual and legal landscape in their motions to compel," Smith’s team wrote in a four-page filing to Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon flagged by The Messenger. But Smith’s team opposes Trump’s request to release sensitive discovery material “out of concern for witness safety.”

Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday accused Smith of withholding discovery evidence, claiming the “prosecution team” includes intelligence community agencies and others involved in the documents probe.

Smith’s team listed six exhibits it wants to remain sealed, including intelligence material related to the superseding indictment against Trump and his co-defendants, an FBI document and an exhibit that "discusses uncharged conduct as to one or more individuals." Smith’s team listed another 16 exhibits they do not object to turning over in public filings and dozens of exhibits Trump has already received in discovery.

"That the Government has exceeded its obligations and produced Jencks Act materials to the defense well in advance of trial — subject to a protective order — in no way dilutes the rationale for keeping the materials out of public view," Smith’s team said, adding: "Furthermore, although safety of prospective witnesses is a prime concern, it is not the only one. Public disclosure of witness identities or their statements in advance of trial also risks infecting the testimony of other witnesses or unnecessarily influencing the jury pool."


MORE FROM Igor Derysh