It’s like a legal soap opera, and Monday’s episode brought us Trump’s legal team throwing down the gauntlet in the Southern District of Florida. Their target? Former Special Counsel Jack Smith and his totally unauthorized “report.”
The plot twist here is that Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, already kicked Smith’s case to the curb last July. Why? Because Smith’s appointment wasn’t exactly by the book—he wasn’t confirmed by the Senate and wasn’t even a U.S. Attorney. Basically, the defense argued, “This guy’s appointment is as legit as a three-dollar bill,” and Judge Cannon agreed.
Now, Trump’s team is saying, “Oh no you don’t, Jack!” They argue that Smith has no business writing or releasing anything resembling a report. Not only would it allegedly harm Trump, but it’d also drag Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira—two co-defendants—through the mud.
The Trump legal team wrote:
“Despite this Court’s concluding that Smith is unconstitutionally appointed and funded, and despite ongoing proceedings against Defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, Special Counsel Smith, in defiance of this Court’s rulings, is determined to have the final word by pushing forward with issuing and transmitting a final report under 28 C.F.R. § 608(c) (the “Final Report”) which Attorney General Garland is certain to make immediately public. These Defendants will irreparably suffer harm as civilian casualties of the Government’s impermissible and contumacious utilization of political lawfare to include release of the unauthorized Report. The Final Report relies on materials to which Smith, as disqualified special counsel, is no longer entitled access — making his attempt to share such materials with the public highly improper.
…
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELThe Final Report promises to be a one-sided, slanted report, relying nearly exclusively on evidence presented to a grand jury and subject to all requisite protections—and which is known to Smith only as a result of his unconstitutional appointment—in order to serve a singular purpose: convincing the public that everyone Smith charged is guilty of the crimes charged. But Nauta’s and De Oliveira’s criminal cases are not over; the appeal of this Court’s dismissal order by Smith is still pending. The Government notably continued briefing the appeal even following the dismissal of the appeal as to President Trump. There remains the threat of future criminal proceedings as to Nauta and De Oliveira, and those proceedings will be irreversibly and irredeemably prejudiced by dissemination of the Final Report. As the Government knows, the continued operation of the protective order in this case will make the one-sided impermissible Final Report even more unfairly prejudicial; Defendants are strictly precluded form refuting the Report. The Final Report is meant to serve as a Government verdict against the Defendants contrary to all criminal justice norms and constitutional guideposts.
Critically, the Government never sought a stay of this Court’s rulings as to the impermissibility of the Special Counsel appointment and his actions in regard to this prosecution. The Government never sought clarification of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B)’s prohibition of disclosure of grand jury materials by persons not authorized to act as government counsel in the matter, with limited exceptions that clearly do not apply to government attorneys found to have no authority to act in the case. Given the invalidity of his purported status under the Appointments and Apportionment Clauses, the invalidly appointed Special Counsel lacks authority to write a grand jury report, to file a report, to share information about the report, or to issue a report.”
Trump’s team is calling Smith’s playbook “dirty pool” and slapping a big “Do Not Pass Go” sticker on his report.
The filing also points out that the government didn’t even bother asking for a stay or clarification on Judge Cannon’s ruling about Smith’s appointment. They claim this makes Smith’s attempt at filing the report not just bold but downright audacious.
Smith’s Greatest Hits, Volume 2
Lest we forget, this isn’t Jack Smith’s first time causing a legal stir. Back in October—just a month before the election—Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. let Smith file a whopping 165-page motion against Trump in the “January 6” case. And yes, it read like a greatest-hits list of accusations.
Critics saw the move for what it was: a big, flashy stunt to get around trial delays and stir the political pot. Trump couldn’t respond in court or cross-examine the evidence, leaving Smith free to write what amounted to a legal tabloid spread. Cue the collective eye-roll.
What’s Next in This Legal Circus?
Trump’s legal team has made their stand, but will the court agree? Either way, the drama is far from over. It certainly looks like Smith’s action here is nothing more than to get the idea that Trump did something wrong back into the headlines to tarnish Trump’s name again. Jack Smith should either be sanctioned for such a move or he should be referred to the bar to remove his license to practice law.
#trumplegalbattle #specialcounselcontroversy #jacksmithreport
