A federal judge in Florida on Monday cleared the way for the Justice Department to soon release parts of a report written by special counsel Jack Smith that laid out plans to overthrow President-elect Donald J. Trump. It details the decisions he made on the charges. Defeat in the 2020 election.
But in a five-page order, Judge Eileen M. Cannon said prosecutors and defense attorneys must appear before her on Friday to discuss whether the Justice Department can release him to Congress. It was decided that it would not. Smith's report concerned a case she oversaw, one in which Trump was accused of refusing to return classified documents after leaving office.
Under the ruling, the Justice Department will be free to release portions of its report on election incidents as early as after midnight Tuesday morning. Mr. Trump's lawyers could also ask the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to block the release of that portion of Mr. Smith's report.
Judge Cannon's order, filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida, is the latest in a week-long battle over the release of a two-volume report representing the final word in two defunct criminal cases filed by Mr. Smith. The development was as follows. Mr. Trump.
One of the cases, overseen by Judge Cannon of Florida, found that Trump illegally kept large amounts of state secrets after leaving office in 2021 and conspired with two of his aides to implicate government efforts to recover the materials. He was charged with interfering with the. . Another lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington charges him with three intersecting conspiracies to illegally maintain his grip on power after losing the presidential election.
The Justice Department has already said that Attorney General Merrick B. Garland wants to release documents related to the classified documents case privately to Congressional leaders rather than to the public. That's because the case is ongoing against two of Trump's associates who have been charged with crimes. with him as a co-defendant.
But lawyers for co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira said the plan was risky and expressed concern that lawmakers could leak the book's contents.
In his order, Judge Cannon agreed with the defense team and barred the Justice Department from showing that portion of the report to anyone until all procedures in the classified documents case were completed.
“The court is not willing to make such a bet based on the general interest of members of Congress, at least without full briefing and hearing on the matter,” she wrote.
Judge Cannon suggested much of Friday's hearing may need to be held behind closed doors to avoid the contents of confidential documents being disseminated publicly.
Even though Mr. Smith officially resigned from his position as special counsel on Friday, the Justice Department is fighting on multiple fronts to keep Mr. Smith's report in the public eye.
Prosecutors had already appealed Judge Cannon's original order blocking his release to the federal appeals court in Atlanta. This is the same court that previously overturned other unusual rulings in favor of Mr. Trump. Prosecutors argued to the Court of Appeal that she lacked the authority to issue a delay order in the first place, let alone an extension, but Judge Cannon proceeded anyway.
Still, Judge Cannon argued in his order that he had appropriate authority, at least with respect to the classified document section of Mr. Smith's report. He claimed jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that publication of the report could affect the cases of Mr. Nauta and Mr. de Oliveira.
After Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Smith bowed to the Justice Department's longstanding policy barring criminal prosecutions against sitting presidents and dropped both cases against him.
Mr. Trump will not be tried in either case, but Justice Department rules require the special counsel to write a final report after completing his work. In recent years, the attorney general has released reports on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a counter-investigation into the origins of that investigation, and a review of President Biden's handling of classified documents, among other issues, in order to make the findings of the investigation much more accessible to public understanding. It is published as a detailed explanation. And history.
For more than a week, Trump's legal team has been fighting hard to block the publication of parts of Smith's report, calling it an “unilateral” and “unlawful” attack on the president-elect. Lawyers also expressed concern that the report could cause damage or embarrassment to some anonymous but “expected” members of the Trump administration.
Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case this summer on the grounds that Garland lacked the authority to appoint Smith, a ruling that went against decades of high court precedent and Justice Department practice. . Trump's lawyers are using the ruling as another argument for why the report should be blocked from publication, but the department has also appealed the ruling to the same appeals court in Atlanta.
An election interference case brought before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan was also significantly delayed and stalled by the Supreme Court's July ruling that the president has presumptive immunity from prosecution for official acts. .
Judge Cannon's ruling Monday was a significant capitulation in some respects and an escalation in others.
He did not modify or revoke the original injunction regarding the volume of the election case report, but would block the Justice Department from releasing that portion after the freeze expires at the end of Monday. I don't do that anymore.
But she expanded on measures to prevent the department from disclosing the classified documents case booklet to House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, as Mr. Garland had planned. She ordered both countries to appear in isolated court on Friday for a hearing on their fate.
Judge Cannon wrote in a brief memo that she was not “persuaded” by the government's view that she lacked jurisdiction over the matter because prosecutors appealed her injunction to the Court of Appeals.
She cited the possibility that the Court of Appeal could reverse an earlier decision to dismiss the case and ensure that Mr. Nauta and Mr. de Oliveira receive a fair trial by keeping the documentary report out of the public domain. He argued that there is an ongoing responsibility to protect rights. It would prematurely taint the jury pool.
Her “duty to maintain the integrity of this process” would be “clearly triggered” because the publication of the report could violate the rights of Mr. Nauta and Mr. de Oliveira to a fair trial. she wrote.
She did not address earlier indications from prosecutors that it was “uncertain” whether the case against Trump's two co-defendants would “continue to proceed” in the real world.
After Trump took office, either a pardon for aides or new politically appointed leadership at the Justice Department could expedite any remaining classified documents cases by instructing prosecutors to drop the case. This seems to indicate the possibility that it may end in the future.
