DOJ Hits Back After Trump-Appointed Judge Blocks Jack Smith Report — Vows to Release Jan 6 Volume in New Filing

The Justice Department hit back a day after Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon blocked the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on President-elect Donald Trump’s aborted criminal cases, telling an appeals court that it intends to release a volume on the January 6 probe.

Cannon issued a temporary order blocking the release of Smith’s report outside of the Justice Department, pending an appeal by former Trump co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira on Tuesday.

But on Wednesday, the DOJ filed a response in which they asked the 11th Circuit to “vacate” Cannon’s order and vowed to release the Jan. 6 report while holding off on the classified documents case until the Nauta/De Oliveira appeals are decided.

In the filing, the government laid out Attorney General Merrick Garland’s plans for the report:

The Special Counsel has already transmitted his Final Report to the Attorney General (as permitted by the district court’s recent order). The Final Report comprises two volumes. Volume One relates to the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution of President Donald Trump relating to the 2020 presidential election (Election Case). Volume Two relates to the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution of defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, as well as President Trump, relating to mishandling of classified documents (Classified Documents Case). The Attorney General intends to release Volume One to Congress and the public consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c) and in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter. But to avoid any risk of prejudice to defendants Nauta and De Oliveira, the Attorney General has determined, at the recommendation of the Special Counsel, that he will not publicly release Volume Two so long as defendants’ criminal proceedings remain For the time being, Volume Two will be made available for in camera review only by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon their request and agreement not to release any information from Volume Two publicly. This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the Department while safeguarding defendants’ interests. The essential premise of defendants’ emergency motion—that, absent this Court’s intervention, “Attorney General Garland is certain to make [the Final Report] immediately public” and thereby cause irreparable prejudice to defendants’ criminal proceedings (Mot. 1)—is thus mistaken.

The filing went on to call the appeal “meritless” and request that Cannon’s order be vacated:

Defendants’ remaining arguments are meritless, irrelevant, or both. There is no basis for defendants or anyone else to seek to bar the Attorney General from disclosing Volume One publicly (or to Congress) or from disclosing Volume Two to select members of Congress in the manner described above. The Court should deny the emergency motion, vacate the district court’s temporary injunction, and make clear that there is no basis for further emergency litigation in the district court regarding the Attorney General’s disposition of the Special Counsel’s Final Report.

The filing addresses the arguments at length and in great detail, and concludes “We respectfully request that this Court deny the motion on the merits, set aside the district court’s temporary injunction in full, and make clear that there is no impediment to the Attorney General allowing for limited congressional review of Volume Two as described above and the publicly (sic) release of Volume One.”