A federal appellate court has cleared the way for the Justice Department to publicly release special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s efforts to undo the results of the 2020 election, although the timing of that release remains unclear.
A lower court judge has barred the release of the report until at least three days after the 11th Circuit decision.
Smith agreed to dismiss the election interference indictment last year after Trump’s election victory, citing Justice Department regulations prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.
Advertisement The Justice Department is appealing that decision before the 11th Circuit, though Smith dropped Trump as a defendant once he was elected.
It will fall to Trump’s appointees leading the Justice Department to decide how to handle the appeal once he takes office.
Although the exact date of the Justice Department’s public release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results is still unknown, a federal appellate court has given the clearance.
It seems likely that a different section of the document, which describes Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, will not be made public for the time being.
The decision was made by the U. S. . After the president-elect and two of his former co-defendants in the documents case filed a flurry of emergency filings urging courts to prevent the release of any portion of the report, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta took action.
Days before Trump is sworn in as president once more, a comprehensive public accounting of Smith’s election interference case against him may be made public, though the decision could still be appealed. However, it might not happen right away. The report cannot be made public until at least three days following the 11th Circuit’s ruling, according to a lower court judge.
Last year, Smith filed a lengthy legal brief outlining the evidence his team had gathered, which revealed many details of Trump and his allies’ alleged attempts to sabotage his election loss. However, Smith’s report might provide a more comprehensive understanding of the evidence and provide information about the approach the government would have taken if that historic set of charges against Trump had proceeded to trial.
Citing Justice Department rules that forbid prosecuting a sitting president, Smith consented to drop the election meddling indictment following Trump’s election victory last year.
The separate charges Smith’s office was pursuing against Trump and two of his longtime employees, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, had already been dismissed by a federal judge in Florida, who determined that Smith was wrongfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and that the charges he had brought were therefore null and void.
Smith removed Trump as a defendant after he was elected, but the Justice Department is appealing that ruling before the 11th Circuit. How the appeal is handled after Trump takes office will be up to his appointees in charge of the Justice Department. In addition to Todd Blanche, his choice for deputy attorney general, Trump has stated that he will name a number of his own defense attorneys to high-level roles within the agency. The department has two positions.
In a brief submitted to the 11th Circuit late Wednesday, Blanche—who has defended Trump in three of his four criminal cases—argued that Smith’s report should not be made public in its entirety because its findings would likely impede Trump’s transition. Trump lawyer Emil Bove, who the president-elect has stated will serve as principal deputy attorney general—a post that does not require Senate confirmation—co-wrote the filing. As Blanche waits for Senate confirmation, Bove is anticipated to fill the position of acting deputy attorney general.
The special counsel report was recently made available for Blanche, Bove, and the lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveira to review. They have mainly relied on the allegation that Smith was appointed illegally in their efforts to keep it secret.
Blanche and Bove wrote, “The report is nothing less than another attempted political hit job which purpose [sic] is to disrupt the presidential transition and undermine President Trump’s exercise of executive power.”.
Attorneys for the Justice Department said in a court filing on Wednesday that Smith and Garland had decided that the special counsel’s report on the investigation into classified documents should not be made public until after the Nauta and De Oliveira lawsuit was over.
They argued that it would be in the public interest to release the section describing Smith’s election interference case.
According to Garland, he only planned to distribute a redacted copy of Smith’s report on the investigation into classified documents to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees from minority parties, provided that they agreed to keep the information confidential.
However, attorneys for Nauta and De Oliveira contended that there was no way to stop those Congressmen or their staffs from disclosing the report and its findings. They asked that the 11th Circuit grant U. S. The release of Smith’s report will be decided by District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee who had presided over the case involving the classified documents before dropping the charges.
An order earlier this week prevented the Justice Department from releasing the report until the appeals court had given its opinion. Cannon is a Trump appointee whose decisions on his behalf have drawn criticism in the legal community and were twice overturned by the 11th Circuit.
The story is still evolving. There will be an update.
