Judge Cannon blocks Jack Smith report release

A Florida federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has blocked the public release of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on his prosecution of Trump for withholding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club after he left the White House and obstructing efforts to retrieve them.

In her order, Judge Aileen Cannon cited her decision in July 2024 that Smith was not legally appointed as special counsel; which led Smith to dismiss the criminal case against Trump; Part II of Smith’s final report on the case. This was cited as the main reason why he said his skin should not be made public.

Smith obtained a grand jury indictment against Trump on charges related to those documents in June 2023, more than two years after Trump’s first term in the White House ended.

Cannon also rejected Trump’s request Monday for two defendants in the case to destroy Smith’s report.

Inside his command is permanent Cannon, who blocked the release of that report, condemned Smith for his “brazen strategy” of compiling evidence and other materials obtained during his investigation and “compiling them into a final report” to the attorney general after ruling that his appointment as special counsel violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Smith took these actions while appealing the judge’s dismissal of the criminal case against Trump. The Justice Department withdrew that objection after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.

In Monday’s ruling, Cannon said releasing Smith’s report would cause irreparable harm to former defendants due to the disclosure of non-public information that includes “grand jury and privilege concerns that are still disputed” between Smith’s prosecution team and defense attorneys.

“And this would be contrary to the fundamental concepts of fairness and fairness in the process where no verdict of guilt can be reached following criminal charges being instituted,” Cannon wrote in the ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. he wrote.

“There is a clear issue of injustice to former defendants that would result from the disclosure of Volume II,” he wrote.

“Special Prosecutor Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this case and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final dismissal of all charges. As a result, the former defendants in this case, like the other defendants in this case, still enjoy the presumption of innocence enshrined in our constitutional order.”

Trump’s other defendants in the case, valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos de Oliveira, initially asked Cannon to block the release of Smith’s report. In January, Trump asked Cannon to ban it from being made public.

In an interesting footnote in Monday’s order, Cannon noted that his decision blocking the release of the Smith reports could be appealed and his ruling could be overturned by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

“As always, this Court will comply with any authority from the supreme court to resolve future requests for legal aid in this or any other case,” Cannon wrote.

Federal district court judges, as a rule, follow orders from higher federal courts and generally do not take the time to confirm this practice with a written order.

Also Monday, Cannon rejected two groups’ motions. Knight First Amendment Institute It obtained a decision from Columbia University and American Oversight to maintain its decision to publish Smith’s report pending the outcome of appeals to its previous decision, which prevented them from pursuing arguments that the report should be made public.

In early February, the Knight Institute asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Cannon’s previous decision barring the release of Smith’s report. The institute also argues to the 11th Circuit that Cannon did not have the authority to prohibit the release of the report.

“Judge Cannon’s decision to permanently block the release of this extraordinarily important report is impossible to reconcile with the First Amendment and common law,” Scott Wilkens, senior attorney at the Knight Institute, said in a statement Monday. “There is no legitimate basis for continuing to suppress.”

Smith’s attorney, Lanny Breuer, did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

In his final testimony to Congress, Smith stated that he was prohibited from commenting on the contents of Cannon’s report due to previous decisions temporarily prohibiting its release.

“Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and his unlawful investigation was improperly funded with tens of millions of hard-earned dollars from U.S. taxpayers,” Kendra Wharton, one of Trump’s lawyers, said in a statement. he said.

“Any fruit of Smith’s poisonous tree should be dealt with appropriately and never come to light,” Wharton said.

Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said in a statement: “Judge Cannon’s decision continues a troubling pattern of decisions that shield the president from public scrutiny and prioritize privacy above the public’s right to know.

“By permanently blocking the publication of Volume II of the Special Counsel report and rejecting our effort to seek a postponement while our appeal is pending, the Court has ensured that the public is denied information of extraordinary national importance,” Chukwu said. he said.

“This sweeping order once again gives the president exactly what he wants—continued suppression of the true records underlying the historic investigation into his misconduct. American taxpayers funded this investigation, and they have a right to know what their government has uncovered, especially on matters of national security,” Chukwu said. he said. “We will continue to use every tool available to uncover this information and defend the public’s right to the truth through the publication of this report.”