Defense attorneys asked the Justice Department and a federal judge Monday night to block from public release a report by Special Counsel Jack Smith detailing his investigation into President-elect Donald J. Trump’s mishandling of classified documents after he leaves office in 2021.
The two attempts to block the report’s release come just two weeks before Trump’s second inauguration as president. With the case against President Trump already dismissed, this report will essentially be Mr. Smith’s last opportunity to present damaging new details and evidence, if any.
In an aggressive letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Mr. Trump’s lawyers showed a recent draft of Mr. Smith’s report, which they said was an example of the special counsel’s “politically motivated attacks” on Mr. Trump. . They demanded that Mr. Garland not allow Mr. Smith to release the report and “immediately remove him” from his position.
“Disclosing a confidential report written by an uncontrollable private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political act designed to harm President Trump politically,” the lawyers wrote. In a separate court filing, lawyers for Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, two of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants in the classified documents case, sought a more direct way to stop the release of Mr. Smith’s report. They asked the judge overseeing the case, Aileen M. Cannon, to issue an emergency injunction barring Mr. Smith from making the report public until the case “has reached a final ruling and the appeals process has concluded.”
Either attempt to stop Mr. Smith could face an uphill battle.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have no power to force Mr. Garland to stop the release of the report, and their letter was little more than a belligerent request. It is also unclear whether Judge Cannon has the authority to instruct the Attorney General how to handle the report of a special counsel she appointed, especially if the case is technically out of her hands and before the appellate court.
This is because Judge Cannon dismissed the entire case last July, ignoring decades of precedent and ruling that Mr. Smith was illegally appointed as a special prosecutor. Mr. Smith and his representatives challenged that decision, and it was under consideration by a federal appeals court in Atlanta when Mr. Trump won the November election.
Mr. Smith, citing the Justice Department’s policy not to indict a sitting president, dismissed the appeal over Mr. Trump’s concerns, effectively ending his role in the case. But he did not dismiss the appeals against Mr. Nauta and Mr. de Oliveira, and federal prosecutors in Florida now plan to pursue the appeals once Mr. Smith resigns, possibly before Inauguration Day on January 20.
Mr. Smith also dismissed another federal lawsuit he filed against President Trump, accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. It is not yet clear when Smith plans to file a report on the incident, and whether it will be filed with the report on the charging documents or whether it will be filed in a separate document.
The effort by Trump’s lawyers to block the report’s release was just the latest attempt to stop or push back any legal filings or proceedings that could embarrass or harm the president-elect.
On Monday morning, a state judge in Manhattan rejected Trump’s latest attempt to delay sentencing on 34 felony charges, saying the hearing would proceed as scheduled on Friday.
Justice Department rules require all special counsels to submit a report to the attorney general explaining why they brought charges and why they decided not to bring other charges they were considering. The attorney general can then decide whether to release the report to the public.
It is unclear when Mr. Smith plans to finalize his report on the classified documents incident. But lawyers for Mr. Nauta and Mr. de Oliveira said in court papers that the report was likely to be made public “in the coming days.”
If one or both of the reports eventually see the light of day, they’re likely not to contain much new or revelatory information.
Reports of classified document incidents can be complicated by the fact that classified information contained in the report must be carefully reviewed by intelligence agencies. The report on the election interference case may not break significant new ground, as Mr. Smith last October filed a massive 165-page report outlining the evidence he plans to present at trial.
Nonetheless, in a letter to Mr. Garland, Mr. Trump’s lawyers complained that a draft report in the classified documents case said Mr. Trump harbored “criminal intent” and was the head of a criminal conspiracy. prosecution. In the draft, the lawyers also wrote: Trump violated several federal criminal laws.”
President Trump’s lawyers scored a comeback victory against Mr. Smith, citing “unethical” conduct and “inappropriate activities.” These accusations could have implications for future retaliation against Mr. Smith, given that the two lawyers who signed the letter to Mr. Garland, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, were appointed by President Trump to high-ranking positions at the Justice Department. There was a possibility that it could affect it. While Mr. Garland has not publicly said whether he will release Mr. Smith’s report, he has in the past released it along with other reports from other special counsels.
For example, in February, Mr. Garland allowed the release of Special Counsel Robert K. Huh’s report on President Biden’s handling of classified material after he served as vice president. While the report concluded that criminal charges were not warranted, it also offered a sobering assessment of Mr. Biden’s memory and cognitive abilities during the 2024 presidential campaign.
