Left: FILE – Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at an office of the Department of Justice in Washington (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File). Center: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida). Right: Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before departing Manhattan criminal court, Monday, May 6, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, Pool).
Update: President Donald Trump filed court documents on Tuesday asking Judge Aileen Cannon to allow him to weigh in as amicus curiae, or a friend of the court, so he can back his former co-defendants' efforts to keep Volume II of Jack Smith's report secret.
"President Trump hereby moves for leave to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae for the limited purpose of reaffirming and incorporating by reference his prior legal arguments to the Court, as well as those made by co-defendants Nauta and De Oliveira, that Volume II of Jack Smith's Final Report should not be made public," the filing said. "President Trump's limited participation in the proceedings will not cause delay or prejudice any party, and this request is consistent with the Court's prior decision to grant President Trump amicus status as to the January 21, 2025 Order."
"For the foregoing reasons, the Court should permit President Trump to participate as amicus curiae for the limited purpose of reaffirming the legal arguments presented in his prior briefing and oral argument, as well as those of Nauta and De Oliveira, and should deny the motions of American Oversight and the Knight Institute to intervene and thereby perpetuate Jack Smith's unlawful criminal investigations and proceedings," the filing concluded.
—
The DOJ and two former Mar-a-Lago classified documents case co-defendants of President Donald Trump have jointly given the federal judge remembered for torpedoing the special counsel's probe a reason to keep the second volume of Jack Smith's report hidden from the public.
In a brief Monday status report, Trump valet Waltine Nauta, Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, and the DOJ took stock of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' order last month. The order set a 60-day deadline for U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to rule on two groups' attempts to intervene, following her "undue delay."
The would-be interventions of the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight have sat untouched since February, not long after the newly minted Trump administration DOJ voluntarily tossed the cases against Nauta and de Oliveira, also ending their active appeals.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox
As Law&Crime reported, both the Knight Institute and American Oversight went to the 11th Circuit asking the appellate court to at least nudge Cannon to rule on their attempts to intervene for the purpose of lifting a January injunction, so there would be something for the groups to appeal as they seek disclosure of Volume II in the "public interest." The appeal came after Cannon was unmoved by multiple reminders about the motions to intervene.
Cannon, a Trump appointee, threw out the president's case in July 2024 and invalidated Smith's appointment as special counsel. Several months later, the judge blocked the release of Smith's Mar-a-Lago report.
When Cannon initially issued the injunction in January, she noted that Nauta and de Oliveira still had an active appeal at the 11th Circuit and that, as a result, releasing Volume II publicly would jeopardize their "due process rights to a fair trial[.]"
With no prospect of a trial during Trump's second term as president, the DOJ and the president's former co-defendants insisted Monday that there are still reasons for Cannon to keep the injunction in place and ensure Volume II doesn't see the light of day.
The status report, submitted by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason A. Reding Quiñones, asserted that the "intervention is improper" and suggested Cannon toss out the groups' motions to intervene without "reaching the merits" of their arguments for vacating the injunction.
Nauta and de Oliveira "would suffer" prejudice of an "extraordinary" nature, the filing says.
In making this statement, the DOJ referred to the arguments made in a March status report, in which both the DOJ and the former defendants opposed lifting the injunction, with the Trump administration emphasizing that it's up to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's "discretion" to release the Mar-a-Lago report.
Nauta and de Oliveira went so far as to say Volume II "should be relegated to the dustbin of history, where it belongs, in order to prevent further unjust prejudice" following "approximately a year-and-a-half of rampant pretrial publicity and vilification after their indictments were sought by an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor with unconstitutionally limitless funding[.]"
The DOJ reiterated Monday that it "understands and appreciates" this stance and said the government "does not object to their positions that the January 21, 2025 Order should remain in effect."
In the event that Cannon were to lift the injunction, however, the DOJ asked that Nauta and de Oliveira have time and space to litigate — if Bondi signals she wants to release Volume II.
"The parties further agree that, should the Court lift its January 21, 2025 Order, the Court should require the Department of Justice to provide written notice to counsel for Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira sixty days prior to releasing a redacted version," the filing concluded. "This would allow the defendants to seek appropriate relief from this Court if the Attorney General expressed an intention to release Volume II outside the Department of Justice."
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments