Trump Begs Appeals Court To Block Special Counsel Report From Going Public
Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday urged an appeals court to block the publication of special counsel Jack Smith’s report explaining why prosecutors decided to charge Trump for alleged crimes tied to Jan. 6, 2021, as well as the alleged illegal retention of classified documents, saying there is information “never released to the public” and more that could endanger his transition to power.
Trump’s request is part of an amicus brief, or a letter of support, for his onetime co-defendants in the classified documents case, personal valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. The charges against Trump were dismissed after he won the election in November, but they remain for Nauta and De Oliveira.
Nauta and De Oliveria this week asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop publication of what will be a two-volume report and remand any decision on the matter back to the district court level, where Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon could hold a hearing and render a decision.
In his letter Thursday, Trump’s lawyers slammed special counsel Jack Smith, rehashing now-longstanding grievances against the prosecutor as well as Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The charges against him were unconstitutional from the start, the lawyers wrote, and the publication of the report is another “attempted political hit job which sole purpose is to disrupt the transition and undermine President Trump’s exercise of executive power.”
“Attempting to publish the Final Report evidences complete disregard for the district court, which found that Smith is unconstitutionally appointed and funded,” the brief states. “Instead of respecting that ruling, Garland seeks to defy the district court by publishing the Final Report in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law and the principles of constitutional governance.”
Trump’s lawyers said too that the final report “goes into more detail about the alleged crimes President Trump and others supposedly committed and involves evidence that was never released to the public — indeed, evidence that could not be released, such as those involving official acts.” (Emphasis original.)
Federal prosecutors informed the appeals court Wednesday that Garland only intends to release the part of the report that focuses on Trump’s now-dropped Jan. 6 election subversion case.
Releasing information about charging decisions underpinning the classified documents case would bear a risk of prejudice to Nauta and De Oliveira, federal prosecutors agreed, since the men are actively facing charges. (Nauta and De Oliveira are working to dismiss the case, saying that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and funded.)
Prosecutors indicated that they would be willing to share the entire two-volume report with members of the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee under private review, but Trump and the co-defendants found this option unpalatable.
Lawyers say Trump is worried about possible leaks to the press.
The brief issued Thursday does not go into detail about specific evidence that Trump is worried might start circulating before he is inaugurated Jan. 20, but he takes umbrage at being called a “co-conspirator.”
The Jan. 6 portion of the final charging report is expected to cover ground that has already been explored openly by Smith. It may also contain information explaining why the special counsel did not pursue different or additional charges against Trump, like incitement of insurrection.
Prosecutors argue that Nauta and De Oliveira have no say in the public release of the Jan. 6 portion of the final report since that case is unrelated to theirs. Nauta and De Oliveira have asked for a hearing before Cannon, hoping to cut around the appeals court approval of the final report’s publication.
The report’s release would seemingly not upset the “orderly transition” of power either, as Trump’s lawyers claim.
Trump vehemently disagrees, the brief explains.
“As the President-Elect overseeing the transition, his views on the subject are worth considerably more than the ‘convenient litigating positions’ of the Government,” Trump’s lawyers wrote Thursday.
Issuing the report at all would violate the Presidential Transition Act, they claim.
“‘Any disruption’ of the transition ‘could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people,‘” Trump’s lawyers wrote, referencing the stated purpose of the act. “And thus ‘all officers of the Government’ are ‘to avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the transfer of the executive power, and . . . otherwise to promote orderly transitions in the office of President.’”
This complaint has become increasingly popular for the incoming president even as he himself has, in recent weeks, been accused of holding up transition proceedings.
The White House under President Joe Biden indicated in late November that Trump had been slow-walking the signing of transition documents, making the handoff more cumbersome and delaying necessary security briefings.
Things have improved since then, however.
Susie Wiles, the incoming White House chief of staff, told Axios in an interview published this week that communications between Biden’s outgoing administration and Trump’s incoming one have been good, aiding a smooth transition.
Trump, however, has personally complained on social media.
Biden has made the transition “as difficult ... as possible,” he recently seethed online, citing how Biden has continued to issue executive orders. As president, that is Biden’s right.
