WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump and his campaign have accused special counsel Jack Smith of violating longstanding Justice Department norms by revealing new revelations in a filing released Wednesday about the former president’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat do, have recorded.

In reality, a federal judge, not Smith, made the decision to release these files to the public.

Trump on Thursday called releasing the file just a month before Election Day a “weapon of government” and alleged Smith and federal law enforcement officials improperly influenced a presidential election.

It’s true that the Justice Department typically maintains an informal 60-day “quiet period” before an election — that is, it avoids discretionary actions that could be viewed as influencing voters. But the new revelations from the special counsel’s office came in an ongoing criminal case at the order of a federal judge, Tanya Chutkan, who ultimately made the decision Wednesday to release the redacted file.

Smith was not aware that Chutkan would make the decision to release the document or the timing of that release, two sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly told NBC News.

Others have compared the “October Surprise” file to then-FBI Director James Comey’s comments about Hillary Clinton’s emails in October 2016, which benefited Trump. But the scenarios are completely different. In 2016, the FBI director made disparaging comments about a presidential candidate who, the investigation found, had not engaged in conduct that warranted criminal charges. In 2024, a special counsel who secured three separate federal grand jury indictments against a former president disclosed information in an ongoing criminal case at the order of a federal judge.

Chutkan has repeatedly made it clear in court hearings that Trump’s presidential candidacy and campaign plan – despite the protests of Trump’s team – will have no impact on the criminal case before her. The judge specifically noted this in an order last month, writing that Trump’s “concern about the political consequences of these proceedings has no bearing on the scheduling of the preliminary hearing.”

Chutkan, who regained control of the case in August after the Supreme Court ruled that Trump enjoyed immunity from some official acts relevant to the case, had ordered both Smith’s team and Trump’s team to present their arguments about Trump’s conduct the case was presidential and what the conduct was private.

Smith’s team chose to clear the air and commission a brand new grand jury to issue a new indictment against Trump without hearing any testimony about Trump’s official actions, particularly his attempts to exploit the Justice Department for his personal gain. This new indictment, filed in late August, was dismissed just outside the so-called 60-day rule, a guideline based on “longstanding Justice Department policies and traditions” that recommends federal prosecutors not to take action against a nominee in the time immediately before an election.

Despite this new indictment, many details still needed to be clarified to determine the scope of the case: what evidence exists, what evidence does not exist. The Supreme Court’s opinion left Chutkan to make many of the fact-specific immunity determinations in the case, and written arguments would always be part of that process.

Chutkan gave Smith a Sept. 26 deadline to file his opening immunity brief, and because the letter and its attachment contained “sensitive material” such as grand jury information and witnesses, Smith had to file his brief under seal, which his office confirmed did it last week.

After hearing opposition from Trump’s team to the redactions proposed by Smith’s team, Chutkan reviewed the order and ultimately determined that the redactions were appropriate. Chutkan also responded to Trump’s previous complaints about a possible violation of the 60-day rule, writing on September 24 that his team could now explain “the extent to which this court is bound by Justice Department guidelines or has jurisdiction to enforce them.” .

Trump argued on his Truth Social account on Thursday that the Justice Department should do “absolutely nothing” that could affect an election in the 60 days prior. “They disregarded their own rule in favor of complete and total election interference,” he wrote in a post. “I didn’t do anything wrong, they did!” The case is a fraud, just like all the others.”

The 60-day period does not apply to judges and generally does not apply to pending cases, although this is always at the discretion of prosecutors if they wish to avoid certain actions even in pending cases. Chuck Rosenberg, a Justice Department veteran and NBC News legal analyst, said Smith’s team followed the rules.

“The case has been charged before. “The litigation in this case is a commitment of the Smith team and not a violation of Justice Department policy,” Rosenberg said. “In any case, the Smith team properly sealed its file. The judge duly unsealed it. It really isn’t any more complicated than that.”

Still, Smith’s decision to quickly file for a superseding indictment against Trump in August cannot be separated from the reality that he and his team believe Trump is a criminal who committed four felonies in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election has; is a repeat offender who has committed criminal conduct that would earn him a longer sentence; and that Trump should serve that sentence in 2025, not in the White House. Had Smith’s team had their way, the Supreme Court would not have intervened, and Trump would currently be in federal prison, or at least a convicted criminal, and they would be preparing their sentencing notes for Chutkan as Election Day approaches.

Trump’s campaign rhetoric about the Justice Department, dating back to his time in office, has also deeply offended federal prosecutors and undermined the institution and principles to which they have dedicated their careers.

Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department are similar to those highlighted by prosecutors in the more than 1,500 criminal cases filed against defendants as of Jan. 6. The kinds of comments federal prosecutors have argued show a lack of remorse and disregard for the law and therefore justify longer sentences.