After attorneys for Donald Trump lashed out in a court filing Tuesday claiming that special counsel Jack Smith is attempting to usurp control of the defense, and demanding more redactions in Smiths brief laying out evidence in the former presidents election subversion case linked to the January 2021 insurrection, prosecutors offered a series of hints about whats to come.

In a motion opposing Trumps request for additional discovery in the case as well as additional redactions in the impending public brief, prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday that the coming appendix, for example, would include interview transcripts and reports, text messages, and more records that the defendant has long possessed.

The defendant agrees with the Governments proposed redactions of the names of individuals who are not specifically identified in the Superseding Indictment, Smith wrote, though Trump now argues that the redactions do not go far enough to protect witness identities.

Smith, for example, revealed Tuesday in a motion opposing Trumps additional discovery requests that the names of witnesses in the case will be redacted, but identifiers such as Arizona House Speaker, Georgia Attorney General and Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, for example, will not.

On this point, a case that the defendant cites, United States v. Todd, supports the Governments position, not his own, Smith wrote.

There, the court permitted the Government to file source materials under seal but required it to file on the public docket the information important to the Courts determination the overall amount of damage incurred by federal agencies during the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and allowed the Government to redact for public filing the name, but not the title, of the Acting Senate Sergeant of Arms, the reply brief continued.

Trumps attorneys claimed too that Smiths brief is politically motivated and that it could influence the outcome of Novembers presidential election as Trump seeks to retake the White House.

The [special counsels] Office wants their politically motivated manifesto to be public, contrary to the Justice Manual and longstanding DOJ norms in cases not involving President Trump, in the final weeks of the 2024 Presidential election while early voting has already begun throughout the United States, Trump attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche wrote in a seven-page motion.

That allegation is false just as it was false when the Court denied the defendants motion to dismiss the case on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution, Smith wrote .

Having criticized President Trump for, according to the Office, trying to litigate this case in the media and improperly press his case in the court of public opinion... the Office is seeking to do just that, in violation of the very restrictions they previously claimed were essential to the fair administration of justice, Trumps attorneys wrote.

The Justice Department typically follows long-standing norms rather than policy or official rules in its manual about not taking any drastic actions within 60 days of an election if they might affect the vote.

Trump has been accusing Smith of election interference since he was first indicted in the case. Federal prosecutors have pushed back on this assertion, noting that his initial indictment was made over a year ago.

But with time running out, Trump says he wants a court in Washington, D.C., to force Smith to redact all references to the titles and positions held by the witnesses who are not specifically named in a superseding indictment released after the Supreme Courts recent decision on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

Smith last week filed his brief under seal, laying out evidence that prosecutors say they can still use in the election subversion case following the immunity ruling.

Smiths brief may contain a significant amount of evidence or other sensitive details, including witness information and testimony about key elements underpinning the charges Trump faces. His superseding indictment eliminated details and statements about Trumps alleged conduct in the Oval Office on Jan. 6, 2021, including those from key advisers and officials about what was going on while a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Trump also wants the court to force Smith to explain why the Justice Departments disclosure of witness statements is consistent with the risks of witness safety, potential juror taint, and the integrity of the proceedings that they have cited previously to this Court and in the Southern District of Florida.

As HuffPost previously reported , there is a chance the brief could be released before the November election, but that will be up to Chutkan to decide. Trumps lawyers have previously resisted attempts to expose evidence in the case before the election, but Chutkan has often said that the courts schedule will not be dictated by Trumps day job campaigning for the White House.

Whatever Chutkan decides, it is a near certainty that Trumps legal team will appeal the matter to the Supreme Court.