A federal Judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the public release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on investigations into Donald Trump as an appeals court weighs a challenge to the disclosure of a much-anticipated document just days before the President-elect reclaims office.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon may represent a short-lived victory for Trump but it’s nonetheless the latest instance of the Trump-appointed jurist taking action in the Republican’s favor. The halt came in response to an emergency request Monday night by defense lawyers to block the release of a report that they said would be one-sided and prejudicial. Smith’s team is expected to respond later Tuesday.
Trump responded to Cannon’s order by complaining anew about Smith’s investigation and saying, “It was a fake case against a political opponent.”
It was not clear what the Justice Department, which has its own guidelines governing Special Counsels, intended to do following Cannon’s order, which barred the release of the report until three days after the matter is resolved by the Atlanta -based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The two-volume report is expected to describe charging decisions made in separate investigations by Smith into Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential Election in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Smith pledged earlier in the day that at least the volume on the documents investigation would not be made public by the Justice Department until 10 a.m. on Friday at the earliest.
Smith’s team abandoned both cases in November after Trump’s presidential victory, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits the federal prosecutions of sitting Presidents.
Lawyers for Trump, including Todd Blanche, who was picked by Trump to serve as his Deputy Attorney General, urged Merrick Garland in a letter made public late Monday to block the release of the report and to remove Smith from his position “promptly” — or else defer the release of the report to the incoming attorney general.
Using language that mimicked Trump’s own attacks on Smith and his work, Blanche told Garland that the “release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump and justify the huge sums of taxpayer money Smith unconstitutionally spent on his failed and dismissed cases.”
The letter was attached in an exhibit to an emergency request filed late Monday in federal court by lawyers for Trump’s codefendants in the documents case, Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. They asked Cannon to block the report’s release, noting that Smith’s appeal of her dismissal of charges against the men is still pending and that the disclosure of pejorative information about them will be prejudicial.
In response to that request, Smith’s team said in a two-page filing early Tuesday that it intended to submit its report to Garland by the afternoon and that the volume pertaining to the classified documents investigation would not be made public before 10 a.m. Friday. It is presumed that both volumes of Smith’s report would be released simultaneously.
Justice Department regulations call for Special Counsels appointed by the Attorney General to submit a confidential report at the conclusion of their investigations.
Garland has so far made public in their entirety the reports produced by Special Counsels who operated under his watch, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information and John Durham’s report on the FBI’s Russian election interference investigation.
___
Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
7 comments
ScienceBLVR
January 7, 2025 at 3:41 pm
Ask Matt Gaetz.. when they fight to block the release of a report, you know it’s juicy..maybe not 7 figure book deal juicy, but at least a good Saturday evening read…
SuzyQ
January 11, 2025 at 3:08 am
Unfortunately, most posters here are not readers. They all claim to be but are not.
tom palmer
January 7, 2025 at 3:46 pm
It would be interesting to see what the investigation turned up that we didn’t already know.
JD
January 7, 2025 at 4:21 pm
Nothing to see here, just like Jan 6th – you know the one many people watched LIVE STREAMING as people BROKE IN to the capital.
Couple that with the infirm old mans ramblings about using military force on Greenland and Canada, you’ve got a senile Kim Jong Un in the making.
PeterH
January 9, 2025 at 2:32 pm
This obstruction of justice action by Cannon is her resume submission for Trump’s next Supreme Court appointment.
Coco
January 11, 2025 at 12:28 am
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the United States va02 offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the tr-20 help of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Workjoin7.Com
MarvinM
January 12, 2025 at 9:58 pm
My understanding is that the Smith report Vol. 1 (Jan. 6th stuff) will be released as early as tomorrow (Jan. 13).
And that at the same time, Vol. 2 will be released to the chair and ranking member of the relevant committee/s of congress.
Which I think is about as fair as it can get to all parties.
So here’s the thing: the only reason Vol.2 is not being publicly released is because it involves an ongoing case for Nauta and De Oliveira.
But if Trump pardons them, there will be no more case, so the chair and/or ranking member will be able to release that part of the report.
My question is, will Trump now NOT pardon Nauta and De Oliveira, because he doesn’t want that report released? I think that would be the easiest and safest thing for him to do. Stinks for N and DO.
Sure, Pres. Trump could tell his new AG to drop the case, but then – same thing. No case, report can be released.
Can he demand his AG block release of the report? I guess, but … why? Why would you not want a final report released? If the case was so botched, so bogus, so unmerited, well, all of that will be in the report. I mean, the report won’t SAY “this case was so botched, so bogus, so unmerited” but people will read it and see, if there was anything sketchy, that something was sketchy and then they can call it out.
It just looks so bad to withhold information from the public, but I guess about the last time I remember Republicans being worried about how something “looked” was 2016 campaign when Bill Clinton met with AG Lynch when their planes just happened to be on the tarmac at the same time.
Where are those people now?
Comments are closed.