• A federal judge unsealed more than 1,800 pages of documents filed by special counsel Jack Smith in the criminal election interference case against former President Donald Trump.
• The records were made public after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request by Trump's lawyers to keep them sealed until after the Nov. 5 presidential election.
• Trump is charged with illegally conspiring to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

A federal judge on Friday ordered the release of more than 1,800 pages of documents filed by special counsel Jack Smith in the criminal election interference case against former President Donald Trump.

The records were made public after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request by Trump's lawyers to keep them sealed until after the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Many of the individual files remain redacted, however.

The material, spread over four volumes, appears to largely center on three categories of information: Evidence that has been used in Smith's prior case filings; public information relating to Trump, such as social media posts and campaign fundraising emails; and information released by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump preemptively complained about the release of the records Friday morning, claiming it was "election interference" and calling Chutkan "evil."

Smith was "going to release something else, and always before the election," Trump said during an interview with podcast host Dan Bongino in Manhattan's Trump Tower.

"Now, it's a terrible thing, what's happening, and the judges, this judge is the most evil person," he said of Chutkan.

Trump is charged with illegally conspiring to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. The four-count indictment centers on the events of Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump pushed Republicans to reject Biden's Electoral College victory even as the Capitol was under threat by a violent pro-Trump mob.

Chutkan is considering what evidence can be used against Trump in light of a Supreme Court ruling this summer that effectively narrowed and delayed Smith's case against the former president.

The high court ruled that Trump has "presumptive immunity" from criminal prosecution for official acts he performed while he was president, and that he has absolute immunity for certain core executive functions.

The ruling by the conservative-majority court, whose nine seats include three filled with Trump appointees, forced Smith to cut out a slew of details from his initial indictment.

The revised criminal complaint against Trump, returned by a new grand jury in August, removed all references to top Department of Justice officials and other key information.

Chutkan on Oct. 2 unsealed Smith's court filing detailing evidence against Trump and laying out arguments prosecutors would make if the case goes to trial.

On Oct. 10, the judge allowed Smith to submit, with redactions, the reams of records backing up that filing. But that appendix was not initially made public on the case docket, in order to give Trump's team time to consider its legal options.

The defense lawyers ultimately asked Chutkan to extend the pause on sharing that appendix until Nov. 14, nine days after the presidential election between Trump and Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.

As part of their request, the lawyers argued that releasing the records while early voting is underway in many states "creates a concerning appearance of election interference."

Chutkan on Thursday rejected that argument, writing that it was actually Trump's request for a delay that posed the bigger risk of impacting the election.

"There is undoubtedly a public interest in courts not inserting themselves into elections, or appearing to do so," Chutkan wrote. "But litigation's incidental effects on politics are not the same as a court's intentional interference with them."

"As a result, it is in fact Defendant's requested relief that risks undermining that public interest," she wrote.

"If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference."