misterright
13 hours ago
Am I misremembering that some of the documents the National Archives demanded be returned from Mar-a-Lago had been sent, unsolicited, by the National Archives to Mar-a-Lago?

Never before has the Department of Justice, prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings against a defendant—and absent a litigation-specific reason as appropriate in the case itself—sought to disclose outside the Department a report prepared by a Special Counsel containing substantive and voluminous case information. Until now. According to the Department, this camera disclosure to four members of Congress is necessary right now—before the conclusion of criminal proceedings—because Attorney General Garland has “limited time” left in his tenure as the head of the Department and wishes “to comply with the historical practice of all Special Counsel,” and also because there is “legislative interest in information about Special Counsel investigations, in order to consider possible legislative reforms regarding the use of special counsels” [ECF No. 703 p. 3 n.2].11 These statements do not reflect well on the Department. There is no “historical practice” of providing Special Counsel reports to Congress, even on a limited basis, pending conclusion of criminal proceedings. In fact, there is not one instance of this happening now [see Tr. 21, 26]. During argument before this Court, counsel misleadingly referenced Congressional testimony by Special Counsel Weiss in 2023 as a purported example of such “historical practice” [Tr. 26]. But Special Counsel Weiss—after opposition by the Department—ultimately agreed to testify on limited matters, repeatedly refusing to answer questions regarding ongoing litigation in order to prevent prejudice to “the rights of defendants or other individuals involved in these matters.”12 13 [Tr. 40–41]. Here, there has been no subpoena from Congress to the Department for Volume II. There is no indication of pending legislative activity that could be aided by the proposed disclosure of Volume II to the specified members of Congress. There is no memorialization of any conditions of confidentiality as referenced by the Department. Indeed, there has been no record provided of an official request by members of Congress for review of Volume II in the manner proposed by the Department.14 To the contrary, some of the same members to whom the Department wishes to present Volume II have urged Attorney General Garland to release Volume II to the public immediately, even if doing so requires dismissal of the charges as to Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira. Supra n.10. In short, the Department offers no valid justification for the purportedly urgent desire to release to members of Congress case information in an ongoing criminal proceeding. //

Meanwhile, on the other side of the balance, there are two individuals in this action, each with constitutional rights to a fair trial, who remain subject to a live criminal appeal of this Court’s Order Dismissing the Superseding Indictment. 11th Cir. Appeal No. 24-1231. The Department has not sought leave to dismiss that appeal, initiated by the Special Counsel, and there has been no indication by any government official in this case that the Department will not proceed on the Superseding Indictment should it prevail in the Eleventh Circuit or in subsequent proceedings.15 These Defendants thus retain—as all parties agree—due process rights to a fair trial that would be imperiled by public dissemination of Volume II. Yet the Department nevertheless insists upon disclosure of Volume II to members of Congress now, promising that conditions of confidentiality, “contingent on their good faith commitment,” will protect against the potential for prejudice [ECF No. 703 p.5]. And if Volume II gets released in whole or in part to the public in contravention of those promises, the Department assures, then Defendants need not worry because this Court can “cure” any damage caused by crafting jury instructions in the future and/or dismissing the charges [ECF No. 703 pp. 5–6]. These assertions flounder on multiple levels and do nothing to detract from the obvious. Given the very strong public interest in this criminal proceeding and the absence of any enforceable limits on the proposed disclosure, there is certainly a reasonable likelihood that review by members of Congress as proposed will result in public dissemination of all or part of Volume II. //

This Court lacks any means to enforce any proffered conditions of confidentiality, to the extent they even exist in memorialized form. And most fundamentally, the Department has offered no valid reason to engage in this gamble with the Defendants’ rights. The bare wishes of one Attorney General with “limited time” in office to comply with a non-existent “historical practice” of releasing Special Counsel reports in the pendency of criminal proceedings is not a valid reason. And surely it does not override the obvious constitutional interests of Defendants in this action and this Court’s duty to protect the integrity of this proceeding. Even less clear is why the Department would defend this position notwithstanding its own Justice Manual, which expressly directs against disclosing substantive case information in a criminal case “except as appropriate in the proceeding or in an announcement after a finding of guilt.” //

Prosecutors play a special role in our criminal justice system and are entrusted and expected to do justice. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 696(2004); Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, Speech to the U.S. Department of Justice, The Federal Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 1940), available athttps://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-attorney-general-robert-houghwout-jackson. The Department of Justice’s position on Defendants’ Emergency Motion as to Volume II has not been faithful to that obligation.

nebraskared
an hour ago
So let me get this straight...Jack Smith, who should never have begun a case, seeks by any means possible, mostly inuendo, to put Trump in jail gets to release his "report" and nobody named in the report for any reason can defend themselves from Smith's, largely, slander. Smith gets to resign with what he would consider clean hands even though once again he failed to complete his assignment in terms of law, but succeeds to rub people's reputations in the mud. Makes you wonder if Biden will give Smith a pardon,...or maybe a Medal of Freedom,... with distinction.

bk
38 minutes ago
What happened to the idea of "the fruit of the poisoned tree" given his appointment was not legit?

DaveM bk
26 minutes ago edited
To date Cannon is the only Court that has ruled Smith's appointment unlawful.
And if it gets appealed the 11'th Circuit Appeals Court will uphold his appointment.
Not once has the 11'th circuit Appeals Court ruled against Smith or in favor of Trump and his co-defendants.

To preserve the status quo as this Court awaits resolution by the Eleventh Circuit of the similar Emergency Motion, to prevent irreparable harm arising from the circumstances as described in the current record in this emergency posture, and to permit an orderly and deliberative sequence of events, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Pending resolution of the Emergency Motion filed in the Eleventh Circuit and/or any further direction from the Eleventh Circuit, Attorney General Garland, the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Smith, all of their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting inactive concert or participation with such individuals, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), TEMPORARILY ENJOINED from (a) releasing, sharing, or transmitting the Final Report or any drafts of such Report outside the Department of Justice, or (b) otherwise releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in the Final Report or in drafts thereof. This Order remains in effect until three days after resolution by the Eleventh Circuit of the Emergency Motion, unless the Eleventh Circuit orders otherwise. //

USA_Proud anon-nn7q
13 hours ago
While it will take a while to change the leadership in the DOJ even after the top gets appointed, it will be very risky for Any DOJ Employee to leak that report. I believe that the Trump Administration would be very likely to collect a few proverbial 'scalps' on defiant DOJ Law deniers early in their Administration, and this would be an excellent test case. The report had material from Grand Jury testimony, that by law, is not releasable. It was collected by a person not eligible by Law to collect it. A Federal Judge ruled against its release. If it does get leaked by a Federal Employee, they not only will be liable for many Criminal charges, they also would be liable to civil charges by the US Citizens illegally disparaged by the leak of this information. That would be grounds for denying their Pension, or having it awarded to those so disparaged. While I would be upset that innocent citizens would be disparaged by its leak, there is some comfort that there would be both punitive and compensatory effects of this leak.

Nauta and De Oliveira claim that Smith, whose appointment as Special Counsel was ruled unconstitutional by the court, lacks the authority to issue a report under federal regulations. The motion also emphasizes that the report would unfairly influence public opinion and taint any potential jury pool while legal appeals are still pending. Defense attorneys describe the report as a "one-sided narrative" that improperly uses grand jury materials and privileged information. //

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Could Merrick Garland and his staff, plus other DOJ Officials TBD potentially face criminal investigation for improper access/disclosure of Rule 6(e) materials to Jack Smith after he was DQ'd from the Florida case, and the D.C. case was dismissed?

Violations of Rule 6(e) are subject to a criminal penalty.

If Jack Smith still has access to those materials for purposes of writing his "Report" to the AG, has he been provided unauthorized access in violation of the Rule????
10:00 PM · Jan 6, 2025. //

The defendants argue that the report would serve as an impermissible "public verdict," undermining their right to a fair trial. They further claim that releasing the report would disregard federal grand jury secrecy rules and the court’s previous rulings that disqualified Smith from the case.

Somehow, we're all supposed to be concerned about the mass exodus of "seasoned government lawyers and FBI agents" who engaged in lawfare against President Trump and members of his 2017-2021 team. They could have learned a valuable life lesson by watching the HBO series "The Wire" before engaging in political warfare against the once and future president.

[You come at the king, you best not miss]

The more people who resign, the less drama will take place, and more slots can be filled with people who just want to do their jobs and have no interest in eliminating political figures or engaging in a soft coup against the White House.

Afederal judge on Monday granted former President Donald Trump’s request for the appointment of a special master to review the documents seized by the FBI during a raid on his Mar-a-Lago home last month. Presiding Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, further held that the Department of Justice cannot review or use for criminal investigative purposes any material seized pending the review process.

Besides handing Trump a victory in his battle for some oversight of the Biden administration’s digging into his documents, Cannon highlighted several significant facts over the course of her 24-page order that further call into question the DOJ’s targeting of Trump.

Here are the seven top-line takeaways:

1. President Biden Was Directly Involved

Musicman
13 hours ago
So much for the Constitutional Right to face your accuser. If true, this is the cherry on top that proves beyond all doubt that Merrick Garland is a partisan hack. Thank God he didn’t make it to the Supreme Court.

NavyVet Musicman
13 hours ago
"no one cares about this anymore"?
I do. This is a deliberate and malicious swipe at the president-elect, hence an effort to divide and harm our country. It is an indicted ham sandwich, selectively packaged "evidence" that buries all exculpatory evidence.

It angers me, and it calls for a thorough investigation by a trustworthy special counsel. I nominate Sidney Powell. Let that bulldog go after those scumbags and ruin their lives, just like they have been doing to Trump and everyone close to him. //

GreenLanternMD Largo Patriot
12 hours ago
If they had anything persuasive, they would have released it before the election. //

emptypockets
11 hours ago
"full of sound and fury signifying nothing".

Incoming AG Bondi should respond, not Trump. She should begin by noting--clearly and loudly that Smith was an illegally appointed SC. Remind that many others also "mishandled classified docs" including Biden who treated them like a pack rat stashing shinies. Ones he never HAD any right to have while ALL Trump's were his to legally remove as POTUS.

Then she could add that she would be doing some deep cleaning, reviewing of records which should be carefully NOT "lost" or heads might indeed roll sooner than even she expected.

This is sore loser-itis highly inflamed. Maybe someone still loves them enough to give them an ointment for that. Not me, though.

On Tuesday, journalist Julie Kelly posted court documents on X showing Special Counsel Jack Smith “admitted the FBI added cover sheets to alleged classified documents found at MAL and took photos for evidence.”

“This confirms my report from last month that the FBI doctored evidence to produce stunt photos of classified documents at [Mar-a-Lago],” Kelly said. //

The FBI purchased glossy cover sheets to use in photos of authorities’ unprecedented raid of former President Donald Trump. //

Prosecutors admitted to mishandling the evidence triggering the delay demanded by the judge which now threatens the possibility for Smith’s team to go to trial before the November election.

According to Kelly on Tuesday, the FBI’s colored cover sheets were included in “classified discovery” implicating prosecutors’ desire to keep the details of the added documents concealed from the public.

“The FBI brought colored classified cover sheets to the raid under the guise of using them to substitute classified documents found within Trump’s boxes,” Kelly wrote on X. “Instead, FBI agents attached the scary looking sheets to various files and took photos.”

The images published by prosecutors became emblematic of the former president’s apparent irresponsibility illustrated from the raid.

The prosecution team destroyed exculpatory evidence supporting one of the most basic defenses available to President Trump in response to the politically motivated charges in this case. The Special Counsel’s Office has wrongfully alleged that President Trump was aware of the contents of boxes in August 2022, where those boxes were packed by others in the White House and moved to Florida in January 2021. The fact that the allegedly classified documents were buried in boxes and comingled with President Trump’s personal effects from his first term in office strongly supported the defense argument that he lacked knowledge and culpable criminal intent with respect to the documents at issue. Any proximity between allegedly classified documents and other dated materials from years before the move, such as letters and newspapers, would have further strengthened this argument. The prosecution team’s instructions to agents who executed the raid essentially acknowledged these propositions, and directed the agents to take care to document the location of both seized items and potentially privileged materials.

However, the agents disregarded those instructions. The government was more interested in staging—and leaking—manipulated photographs to the press than preserving key exculpatory evidence that has now been lost forever. Trump, ECF No. 48-1.2 The agents did not maintain the order of the documents, and they did not take photographs that would have served as alternative evidence of the documents’ sequence in each box. In July 2023, the agents disclosed this fact during a meeting with prosecutors from the Special Counsel’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”). But the Office did not timely disclose the notes from that meeting for almost a full year. Indeed, they persisted in that suppression, notwithstanding that the notes were responsive to an October 2023 discovery request from President Trump, while urging the Court to rush to trial based on false assurances that they were in compliance with their discovery obligations.

In hearings during March and April 2024, the Special Counsel’s Office misrepresented to the Court that the pre-raid sequence of the documents was intact. Only after an evidence inspection by counsel for President Trump’s co-defendants revealed the extent of the problem did the Office disclose in a May 3, 2024 filing that the documents were not intact as had been claimed previously. Vague language in that submission and corresponding additional discovery demands from President Trump caused these due process violations to further unravel.

It’s a dry heat
9 hours ago edited
Just to be clear, including a provision in the direction for conducting the search warrant specifically authorizing heavily armed men to use deadly force is not deemed by Smith as creating "a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger" to a former President and his family is perfectly okay; but for Trump to recite verbatim this authorization to use deadly force against him and his family somehow creates an intolerable risk to Smith and his goons? That's the argument? Oh please, someone play some tiny violin music while Smith cowers against the possibility that the FBI threat to kill Trump might make some people mad.

Smith should include in his request that Trump not make mention of the fact the FBI staged that infamous photo of the so-called classified material that it recovered. When I read that it made me really mad.

FBI documents included in the unsealed filings also revealed that shortly before the raid was authorized and executed, Trump was cooperating with the FBI. //

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
·
Follow
I believe the redacted name is Trump's attorney.

He advised Trump not to permit the feds into another area of MAL. Trump overruled that counsel and let Bratt and FBI into the basement storage area where boxes were located.

Two months later, Bratt initiated the armed,… Show more
7:17 PM · May 23, 2024. //

In August 2022, the FBI did not believe that it was necessary to raid Mar-a-Lago. See Ex. 1 at USA-00940268.

UpLateAgain Lightning47
5 hours ago
The raid should NEVER have been authorized. It was total BS. But should the language restricting the use of deadly force have been removed from the op order? Absolutely NOT. The Deadly Force Policy RESTRICTS the use of deadly force. It's not a green light to use it. It specifies the only conditions under which it can be used. Police at every level (including the FBI) are commonly reminded of the department's shooting policy before an action. To remove it would be LEGALLY seen as inviting gun play. //

GBenton Lex Naturae
4 hours ago
As in War Games, the only way to win this is not to play.

There should have been no raid. The language, per se, is not the real issue. Every raid has the language for a reason. But it IS a very big freaking reason why they never, ever should have done this. //

GBenton mikwcas
5 hours ago
yeah, we're witnessing fascism, Communism, and tyranny. And we're parsing whether the use of force order was extraordinary.

We need to make them live by their own rules. They hype up nonsense into crimes. Well, turn around is fair play. They create a scenario for an illegitimate raid that included potential for use of deadly force, they gotta own it.

Tone it down? No. Wrong answer. Shout it from the rooftops. Biden tried to kill Trump if the circumstances allowed. And Jack Smith tried to frame him and set up the hit.

Oh, it's not unique to Trump. SO WHAT?

The entire raid shouldn't have been used in the first place. And this only makes that a zillion times more true. //

GBenton bk
5 hours ago
Good people project their good nature on others. It's hard for some to see that evil is being done intentionally on our soil by our government. Conservatives want to have faith in law enforcement and the legal system. But it's all been perverted.

The bottom line is they are manufacturing fake crimes to persecute Trump and those around him, not to mention Christians, parents, etc.

We should not ever again give these filth the benefit of the doubt. When our side gets back in power, and it will happen some day, odds are, the game needs to change: They need to be prosecuted for their actual crimes and abuse of power.

The Bush/McCain/Romney doctrine of let bygones be bygones is suicide. Only one said plays by the rules so the game is rigged against us.

Or, we could keep taking the high road, not pushing every advantage, and let them basically win by default over time. //

GBenton Susie Moore
4 hours ago
Agree 100% Characterizing it as a "hit" is over stepping.

But that the order made it possible use of force could have resulted in death underscores how wildly irresponsible this raid was in the full context.

There should never have been a raid if that inherently involved a risk of loss of life over documents, etc.

The FBI was authorized to use “deadly force” against former President Donald Trump when the Biden administration agency raided Mar-a-Lago in search of classified documents, according to newly unsealed court documents shared on X by independent journalist Julie Kelly.

Attorney General Merrick Garland personally approved the unprecedented raid on Trump’s Florida home in the summer of 2022, after which special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. Notably, President Joe Biden also retained classified documents following his tenure as vice president but was not charged by his own Justice Department because prosecutors said he would likely “present himself to the jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

A newly unsealed operations order reveals the FBI was authorized to use deadly force against the former president if need be, Kelly reported.

While the explanation may seem plausible, altering the order of documents represents a serious form of evidence tampering that could completely undermine the prosecution's case.

Perhaps even more extraordinary, the prosecution then admits that they misled the court by previously indicating that the evidence had been left untouched since its seizure last year.

"The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court," the legal filing notes. //

etba_ss JSobieski
5 hours ago
It's his job to know, not guess. Therefore, he is either incompent and lied when he certified something was true when he didn't know that for a fact or he did know and lied about it. Either way, Smith lied.

It wasn't simply a random throwaway line. He certified to the court that the documents weren't viewed and weren't tampered with. Both happened. So he either lied in original filing by stating something as fact that he didn't know or he is lying now.

Otherwise, a lead prosecutor could have his team do things and not tell him and then he could claim it didn't happen and be under no obligation to the truth. He has to certify to truth, so there is no way around him lying. Either he lied about knowing or knew and lied about it not happening.

The Federalist asked NARA whether the pallets shipped by GSA included the documents that were later confiscated by Smith’s team during their raid of Mar-a-Lago, and NARA’s media staff responded that the agency had “no awareness about the contents of the materials on the pallets and had no involvement in the move project that is referenced in the GSA emails.”

“NARA was harassing Trump throughout 2021 for what they insisted were government records apparently WITHOUT contacting GSA to search dozens of boxes in their possession,” Kelly observed.

America First Legal
@America1stLegal
·
Follow
/1🚨EXPLOSIVE — Unsealed docs reveal just how intimately the Biden White House worked with NARA to trigger the Special Counsel classified docs investigation of President Trump.

This confirms our own research that this prosecution is politically tainted and should be dismissed:
1:27 PM · Apr 26, 2024 //

As RedState previously reported, this week, an unredacted version of former President Trump's motion for discovery in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case released by Judge Aileen Cannon has already suggested collaboration between NARA, the Justice Department, and the Biden administration. The motion shows bias within NARA, including internal emails from General Counsel Stern discussing strategies to prejudice President Trump and timing public communications with Congress. Three days after these communications, the Biden Administration directed NARA to reject Trump's claim of executive privilege and disclose records to the January 6th Committee.

On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon released an unredacted version of former President Trump's motion for discovery in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. The document appears to show collaboration between the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Justice Department, and the Biden administration to develop the case.