

    Judge in Trump 2020 election case unseals more evidence from special counsel - CBS News
















Latest

U.S.


World


Politics


Entertainment


HealthWatch


MoneyWatch


Crime


Space


Sports


Brand Studio



Local News

Baltimore


Bay Area


Boston


Chicago


Colorado


Detroit


Los Angeles


Miami


Minnesota


New York


Philadelphia


Pittsburgh


Sacramento


Texas



Live

CBS News 24/7


Baltimore


Bay Area


Boston


Chicago


Colorado


Detroit


Los Angeles


Miami


Minnesota


New York


Philadelphia


Pittsburgh


Sacramento


Texas


48 Hours


60 Minutes



Shows

48 Hours


60 Minutes


America Decides


CBS Evening News


CBS Mornings


CBS Morning News


CBS Reports


CBS Saturday Morning


The Daily Report


The Dish


Eye on America


Face the Nation


Here Comes the Sun


Person to Person


Sunday Morning


The Takeout


The Uplift


Weekender






CBS News Investigates


CBS News Confirmed


CBS Village


Podcasts


In Depth


Newsletters


Download Our App


CBS News Team


Executive Team


Brand Studio


Paramount+


Join Our Talent Community


RSS Feeds


Davos Interviews


A Moment With...


Innovators & Disruptors


Economy 4.0























U.S.


World


Politics


HealthWatch


MoneyWatch


Entertainment


Crime


Sports








Watch CBS News












Politics

Judge in Trump 2020 election case unseals more evidence from special counsel




    By
                        
                      Kathryn Watson, 
                              
                      Melissa Quinn


Updated on:  October 18, 2024 / 9:31 PM EDT
          / CBS News
        



















Judge releases trove of evidence in Trump case 













Judge releases trove of evidence in Trump 2020 election case
01:09

The judge overseeing President Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case released more evidence collected by special counsel Jack Smith on Friday, unveiling an enormous batch of heavily redacted records.The 1,889 pages of material, which Trump's legal team had sought to keep under wraps, constitute four volumes of an appendix that Smith's prosecutors filed alongside a motion over presidential immunity that was unveiled earlier this month. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, ordered the unsealing of the redacted appendix last week, but delayed the release to give Trump time to contest her decision.The new documents include transcripts of court hearings, interviews and speeches related to the case, as well as additional source material. Smith had indicated that much of the appendix contains sensitive information that should stay hidden from the public, and the released version contains hundreds of pages that remain under seal. That evidence, subject to a protective order issued at the start of the case last year, likely includes transcripts of testimony before a grand jury and FBI interviews.But many of the documents include publicly available information, including voting tabulations and tweets from Trump and others connected to the case. Prosecutors also included Trump's speech near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, in which he told a crowd of supporters that he won the election and said "we're going to the Capitol." Chutkan reiterated her decision to release the appendix in an order issued Thursday,  writing that the public is presumed to have access to "all facets of criminal court proceedings." Trump's legal team tried to keep the records under seal, arguing their release could influence the 2024 presidential election, but Chutkan said she did not find their arguments persuasive and would not take political considerations into account when steering the case.


Trump was originally indicted last year, with prosecutors alleging he and his allies orchestrated a broad campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The case was paused for months while Trump's lawyers argued he should be immune from prosecution. The Supreme Court decided over the summer that presidents are immune for "official acts" they take while in office. Smith filed a new indictment narrowing the charges to comply with the court's decision. Chutkan is now tasked with determining whether Trump enjoys immunity under the Supreme Court's framework. He has pleaded not guilty.Smith's team filed a motion urging Chutkan to find Trump is not immune from prosecution, which was unsealed on Oct. 2. Trump's lawyers have until Nov. 7 — two days after Election Day — to submit their response.His attorneys argued that Chutkan shouldn't release any additional information in the case, saying in a filing that the "asymmetric release of charged allegations and related documents during early voting creates a concerning appearance of election interference." But Chutkan said the court isn't limiting public access to one side of the case, since Trump and his team can present their own legal arguments and facts.


In a separate order on Wednesday, Chutkan also largely rejected Trump's demand for prosecutors to search out and turn over more information that he believed would support his defense. Chutkan said prosecutors may have already looked for the information Trump wants, or may not have it within their control. Among the evidence Trump unsuccessfully demanded was information about alleged undercover agents at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Chutkan said the former president "does not provide anything more than speculation that there even were any such undercover actors" at the Capitol when Trump's supporters breached the building.


Katrina Kaufman and 
                                                  
                                  Scott MacFarlane
                  
        contributed to this report. 
      



Trump Investigations

              More
              






Court dismisses case against Trump's co-defendants in documents probe







Trump Justice Dept. fires employees tied to Jack Smith probes







Judgment in Trump fraud case stands at $502 million before inauguration







Special counsel's final report says Trump would have been convicted







A timeline of Trump's "hush money" trial from inside court





            More
            

Kathryn Watson


Kathryn Watson is a politics reporter for CBS News Digital, based in Washington, D.C.






© 2024 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.




More from CBS News






          Trump administration wants SCOTUS to permit firing of whistleblower agency head
        






          William Byron wins Daytona 500 after Trump departs rain-delayed race
        






          Trump says he may impose auto tariffs of around 25%
        






          Senate confirms Howard Lutnick as commerce secretary
        




























Copyright ©2025 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy
California Notice
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Terms of Use
About
Advertise
Closed Captioning
CBS News Store
Site Map
Contact Us
Help


facebook




twitter




instagram




youtube



View CBS News In




CBS News App

Open





Chrome




Safari

Continue



Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Not Now
Turn On



>So here’s the scenario we propose:

>(1) VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tem Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, is required).

>(2) When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, as so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other states.

>(3) At the end, he announces that because of the disputes in the 7 states, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those states.  That means the total number of “electors appoint” – the language of the 12^(th) Amendment, is 454.  This reading of the 12^(th) Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe.  A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228.  There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden.  Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.

>(4) Howls, or course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required.  So Pence says fine.  Pursuant to the 12^(th) Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority.  That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by the states, the representation from each state having one vote.”  Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote.  President Trump is re-elected there as well.

>(5) One last piece.  Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control.  That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one – a constitutional no-no.  So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (Which includes the filibuster).  That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.

>(6) The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.  Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where again, Tribe (and others) claims that these are non-justiciable political questions should be raised to get those actions dismissed.  The fact is that the constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter.  We should take all of our actions with that in mind.