REVEALED: Jack Smith urged judge in Mar-a-Lago docs case to deny release of unredacted discovery materials to Trump team

On Monday following an order by Judge Aileen Cannon, a version of Donald Trump’s motion to compel discovery in the Mar-a-Lago documents case was released with much of the previously redacted information revealed. Special counsel Jack Smith argued to the judge in February that the request for unredacted discovery of materials should be denied.

In the court filing, Smith argued that the "defendants’ request for unredacted discovery of materials should be denied." Independent investigative reporter Julie Kelly, who has been instrumental in tracking the lawfare against both Trump and J6 defendants, brought the news to X.

Smith said that "Redactions to the discovery in this case were made for information such as the FBI’s case file number, the email addresses of FBI employees, classification markings that no longer applied to now-unclassified documents, and other similarly non-discoverable information."

"The defendants have not articulated why redactions in particular documents contain information that is materially helpful to the defense, as required by the case law."

The defendants' motion to compel discovery itself was redacted, with the new version released on Monday revealing vast segments that were previously redacted. Two sections featured the most redactions in the original motion: "Early Indications of NARA Bias" and "The Biden Administration Weaponizes the PRA."

The sections discuss how NARA General Counsel Gary Stern "agreed to coordinate" with the Biden administration regarding the documents, with Deputy White House Counsel Jonathan Su intervening when Stern "offered to provide a copy of the notes to President Trump’s [Presidential Records Act] representative."

In the February court filing, Smith also argued that Trump and his team "are not entitled to discovery of internal government correspondence and memoranda, or to documents that are otherwise privileged."

Smith argued that each request by the defense seeking evidence "fails to establish one or more of the requirements for a motion to compel—namely, that the evidence sought must be material to the defense; must be within the Government’s possession, custody, or control; and must not be protected from disclosure by an applicable privilege."

Smith also wrote that the court "should deny defendants’ requests for evidence of 'improper coordination with NARA' and of 'bias and investigative misconduct,'" saying these "are both grounded in a request for information that is neither material to the defense…nor material to guilt or punishment."

"Moreover, many of the specific requests within these two categories seek evidence from agencies—including NARA, the White House, and the Intelligence Community—that are not part of the prosecution team. And any items that may, in fact, be within the possession, custody, or control of the Government, are privileged and not subject to disclosure."

The court, Smith wrote, should deny the Trump team’s "requests for evidence related to Trump’s security clearance with the Department of Energy."

He said this should be denied because the government "has produced the results of a search in Scattered Castles, which yielded no past or present security clearances for Trump." Scattered Castles is "a database of security clearances maintained by the Intelligence Community."

He also said "the defendants’ request that the Court compel the Government to obtain information from DOE about how it handled security clearances for prior presidents is meritless, as the only possible justifications for seeking that information would be to support a pretrial motion to dismiss for selective prosecution," adding that existing rulings and laws "do not permit that type of fishing expedition."

Smith said the court should deny the Trump team’s "the Government has produced to the defendants all information it obtained during the investigation" relating to temporary secure facilities or the steps that the Secret Service took relating to security, and added that the defendants' "requests are nonspecific fishing expeditions."