An attorney previously associated with former President Donald Trump’s legal team, now representing a prominent Trump supporter, claims that special counsel Jack Smith failed to review crucial documents in Trump’s case before indicting him. The attorney asserts that the documents were “absolutely exculpatory” and had been submitted to the special counsel’s office, leaving him stunned by the indictment.
According to CBS News, Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who had worked with Rudy Giuliani in challenging the 2020 election results on behalf of Trump, testified before the January 6 committee for eight hours. Kerik had already provided thousands of pages of documents, including sworn affidavits questioning the integrity of the electoral process during the 2020 election, to the special counsel’s office on July 23.
Despite this submission, the special counsel’s office contacted the attorney, Timothy C. Parlatore, the day after Trump’s indictment, requesting the same documents again, claiming they were no longer under privilege by the Trump campaign. Parlatore believes these documents are crucial to proving whether Giuliani and Trump knowingly made false claims of election fraud.
A former federal prosecutor suggested that this oversight might be a result of the special counsel gathering evidence for the discovery phase, and the documents may not have been essential to the indictment. However, it is not the first such oversight by Smith’s office, as they admitted in a Monday court filing to not handing over all evidence to Trump’s lawyers in a separate case.
The indictment accuses Trump of knowingly making fraudulent claims about election fraud. The lack of evidence into the former president’s state of mind during the weeks after the election raises concerns about the prosecution’s case, as it must convince a jury and appellate court judges that Trump’s actions are not protected by the First Amendment’s free speech provisions.
The attorney’s claim that the documents hold exculpatory evidence for Trump raises questions about the special counsel’s handling of the case. Some observers suggest that the ongoing legal cases against Trump may be intended to smear him in the run-up to the GOP presidential race, rather than seeking a conviction based on solid evidence.
