TXAggie2011 said:

---

Judge Cannon agrees with DOJ that they can release the "January 6" volume of the Special Counsel report. It can be released tomorrow.


Judge says she's going to hold a hearing Friday to decide if DOJ can release the Classified Documents volume to certain members of Congress.

DOJ will likely supplement their current appeal to the 11th Circuit to seek their intervention before Friday, I would think. I wonder if the affected members of Congress will file anything.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25485708-695-cannon-1-13/

---

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: This order only resolves 1 pending motion. Cannon still has Trump's and Clark's--with Clark asking for administrative stay to enjoin release of Vol. I. https://t.co/xsxwkxOGoR

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 13, 2025

will25u said:

---

NEW: After insisting Vol One of Jack Smith report only deals with Jan 6 case against Pres Trump, DOJ, in response to court order, admits 2 references to classified docs case. pic.twitter.com/fL1qUWEXqp

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) January 12, 2025

There is no separating Pres Trump from Nauta and De Oliveira in the docs case. All 3 were on the same indictment including conspiracy charges. Nauta handled some boxes the DOJ claimed (but later admitted they couldn't prove) contained national defense files.

Cannon won't buy it pic.twitter.com/rf8v9iAObZ

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) January 12, 2025

---

Turns out, Judge Cannon did buy it.

Jeffrey Clark has no pending motion for Judge Cannon to decide. He filed an amicus brief, which is just a brief meant to "help" the judge rule on something, as to the issue she just ruled on. There is nothing for her to actually rule on with regards to Jeffrey Clark.


Trump did, I think, file a Motion to Intervene and asked for it to alternatively be treated as an amicus brief. But with regards to the January 6 report, he filed that as to the issue she just ruled on.

I guess she *could* go back and grant Trump's motion to intervene and then re-decide the same issue she just ruled on, but that wouldn't make much sense.

I think she is talking about his motion to join in the case with Trump. Since Trump is officially out of the case currently.

Also he asked her to do an admin restraining order if she won't let him into the case so he can file a civil something to stop the release since he is featured in both volumes as it would impact his rights to a fair trial if it is released.

Something like that. But I am not a lawyer so I don't know the right words.

Only about an hour left before the DOJ can release "Vol 1"

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: And Trump is back in the fight filing supplement asking Judge Cannon to maintain the status quote & hear his Motion on Friday. 1/ pic.twitter.com/mYwwMmEQHx

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 14, 2025

3/ Highlighting a few points: Trump's legal team nails DOJ for its efforts to negatively impact Trump who is soon to be commander in chief. pic.twitter.com/N8lwk4Kbcf

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 14, 2025

5/5 Exact same reasons causing DOJ to decide not to release Vol. II should cause them not to release Vol. I.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 14, 2025

JUST IN: DOJ urges Cannon to reject Donald Trump's late-night bid to block Jack Smith's report, noting he's not a party to the case anymore and has "no right to participate." https://t.co/PurlIBcWMq pic.twitter.com/hnMUspKI8S

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 14, 2025

3/ Judge Cannon has denied relief to Trump. She will likely do for Clark as well in a separate order. BUT she is rightly taking a swipe at DOJ for its "urgency" in releasing Vol. I, when it prevents Clark & others harmed by Vol. I from having chance to file suit.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 14, 2025

Wow. Totally ridiculous. TDS is still alive and well if anyone thought it would be any different this time around.

NEW: House Dems tell AG Garland to do whatever it takes to release Jack Smith’s final report on Trump’s classified docs case — even if it means dropping the charges against his codefendants.

w/ @Hailey_Fuchs https://t.co/kVXxbWY3vZ pic.twitter.com/IaOdgEGHa8

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 16, 2025

Yeah that won't work. Courts maintain inherent power to enforce their own orders. Idiots.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Yeah that won't work. Courts maintain inherent power to enforce their own orders. Idiots.

---

I believe you're missing their point. If they dropped the case in its entirety, Judge Cannon would have no basis tomorrow at her hearing about this to issue an Order that it should continue to be blocked from Congress (or the public.)

Her entire basis for blocking the release and her jurisdiction to do so is that there are criminal proceedings in front of her court (setting aside the appellate jurisdictional issues lurking in the background).

TXAggie2011 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Yeah that won't work. Courts maintain inherent power to enforce their own orders. Idiots.

---

I believe you're missing their point. If they dropped the case in its entirety, Judge Cannon would have no basis tomorrow at her hearing about this to issue an Order that it should continue to be blocked from Congress (or the public.)

Her entire basis for blocking the release and her jurisdiction to do so is that there are criminal proceedings in front of her court (setting aside the appellate jurisdictional issues lurking in the background).

---

Honest question if all the cases are dropped.

What is the legal basis of this report from an individual who has been determined to have been illegally appointed, unconfirmed by the Senate, if all cases are dismissed what is the legal purpose of this report then? I understand what the political purpose of it is, however it seems like a act of involving the court in a political opposition research scheme bordering on defamation

Coming from a dearth of knowledge of FRCP: can the U.S. simply dismiss an indictment in its entirety?

In my practice, even long after a case is confirmed, completed, consummated, and closed, the judge retains jurisdiction to enforce their order.

Quote:

---

Rule 48. Dismissal
(a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.
(b) By the Court. The court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in:
(1) presenting a charge to a grand jury;
(2) filing an information against a defendant; or
(3) bringing a defendant to trial.

---

LINK

2/ Link: https://t.co/NKfF4Cmy9Y

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 27, 2025

Quote:

---

"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."

...

However, "[t]here is no 'historical practice' of providing Special Counsel reports to Congress, even on a limited basis, pending conclusion of criminal proceedings," Judge Cannon stressed. "In fact, there is not one instance of this happening until now." The federal judge then chastised the DOJ for "misleadingly" referencing Special Counsel David Weiss's Congressional 2023 testimony as an example of "historical practice." First, the DOJ opposed Congress's request for Special Counsel Weiss to testify, Judge Cannon noted. And second, when Weiss eventually agreed to testify "on limited matters," he "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.'"

Judge Cannon also destroyed the DOJ's argument that there was "legislative interest in information about Special Counsel investigations, in order to consider possible legislative reforms regarding the use of special counsels." "[T]here has been no subpoena from Congress to the Department for Volume II," Judge Cannon stressed. Nor is there any "indication of pending legislative activity that could be aided by the proposed disclosure of Volume II to the specified members of Congress," she added.

"In short," Judge Cannon concluded, "the Department offers no valid justification for the purportedly urgent desire to release to members of Congress case information in an ongoing criminal proceeding." She went further, however, questioning why the DOJ would even attempt to release of Volume II when "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.'" Here, Judge Cannon, citing the American Bar Association's rules of professional conduct, stressed that "[a] prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate . . . ."

---

MarkTwain said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Yeah that won't work. Courts maintain inherent power to enforce their own orders. Idiots.

---

I believe you're missing their point. If they dropped the case in its entirety, Judge Cannon would have no basis tomorrow at her hearing about this to issue an Order that it should continue to be blocked from Congress (or the public.)

Her entire basis for blocking the release and her jurisdiction to do so is that there are criminal proceedings in front of her court (setting aside the appellate jurisdictional issues lurking in the background).

---

Honest question if all the cases are dropped.

What is the legal basis of this report from an individual who has been determined to have been illegally appointed, unconfirmed by the Senate, if all cases are dismissed what is the legal purpose of this report then? I understand what the political purpose of it is, however it seems like a act of involving the court in a political opposition research scheme bordering on defamation

---

Well it appears Jusge Cannon answered the very question I had about there being no legal justification to release a report on cases that were dismissed

No, she did not quite do that. Her whole premise for her ruling was the appeal is still active (therefore her dismissal could be reversed.)

If the case was dropped in its entirety, her premise would evaporate and she'd have no basis to rule on the report, yet alone block it. She acknowledged that in regard to Trump's attempt to intervene.

The legal basis for releasing the report is it is a legally required report and the law gives the Attorney General the express discretion to release the report publicly. (28 CFR 600.9)


Her ruling as to releasing the report "in camera" to certain members of Congress is dubious, by the way, which is why the 11th Circuit originally declined to block it themselves. But she ran out the clock and the current DOJ is, of course, rather unlikely to appeal it.

The report has been FOIA'd by members of the media. That very well might end up getting litigated.

🚨 JUST IN: Trump's Department of Justice fires over a dozen officials from former Special Counsel Jack Smith's team - Fox pic.twitter.com/wtW4Qug5O7

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 27, 2025

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, she did not quite do that. Her whole premise for her ruling was the appeal is still active (therefore her dismissal could be reversed.)

If the case was dropped in its entirety, her premise would evaporate and she'd have no basis to rule on the report, yet alone block it. She acknowledged that in regard to Trump's attempt to intervene.

The legal basis for releasing the report is it is a legally required report and the law gives the Attorney General the express discretion to release the report publicly. (28 CFR 600.9)

---

Including information on defendants in active cases? Is it normal to make criminal accusations against a defendant (Trump) with secret evidence and fruit of the poisonous tree that the defendant is never given an opportunity to refute? The whole premise is something Stalin would love. And the whole thing was a setup.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, she did not quite do that. Her whole premise for her ruling was the appeal is still active (therefore her dismissal could be reversed.)

If the case was dropped in its entirety, her premise would evaporate and she'd have no basis to rule on the report, yet alone block it. She acknowledged that in regard to Trump's attempt to intervene.

The legal basis for releasing the report is it is a legally required report and the law gives the Attorney General the express discretion to release the report publicly. (28 CFR 600.9)


Her ruling as to releasing the report "in camera" to certain members of Congress is dubious, by the way, which is why the 11th Circuit originally declined to block it themselves. But she ran out the clock and the current DOJ is, of course, rather unlikely to appeal it.

The report has been FOIA'd by members of the media. That very well might end up getting litigated.

---

Legally required report from who? A special counsel who was ruled as being illegally appointed and unconfirmed by the senate as required by law under 5 USC PART II, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II Subsection 1211

(b) The Special Counsel shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

That's a pretty big leap.

FYI -- about the 12 "career" DOJ prosecutors who were fired yesterday after having been part of Special Counsel Smith's Office.

Do NOT believe the claim they were "detailed" to that position.

EVERY SINGLE ONE volunteered to work for Smith. Some were already working on the… pic.twitter.com/GaJTD3BPAH

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) January 28, 2025

I guess you can say they ****ed around…

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground."

Big shoutout to all the federal employees and deep-staters that have suddenly turned into constitutional scholars.

Welcome!

MarkTwain said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, she did not quite do that. Her whole premise for her ruling was the appeal is still active (therefore her dismissal could be reversed.)

If the case was dropped in its entirety, her premise would evaporate and she'd have no basis to rule on the report, yet alone block it. She acknowledged that in regard to Trump's attempt to intervene.

The legal basis for releasing the report is it is a legally required report and the law gives the Attorney General the express discretion to release the report publicly. (28 CFR 600.9)


Her ruling as to releasing the report "in camera" to certain members of Congress is dubious, by the way, which is why the 11th Circuit originally declined to block it themselves. But she ran out the clock and the current DOJ is, of course, rather unlikely to appeal it.

The report has been FOIA'd by members of the media. That very well might end up getting litigated.

---

Legally required report from who? A special counsel who was ruled as being illegally appointed and unconfirmed by the senate as required by law under 5 USC PART II, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II Subsection 1211

(b) The Special Counsel shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

That's a pretty big leap.

---

Wrong law. That statute is about the Office of Special Counsel which deals with federal employment issues. The current one is Hampton Dellinger who was confirmed by the Senate in March, 2024.

https://osc.gov/News/Pages/24-07-Senate-Confirms-Hampton-Dellinger.aspx

https://osc.gov/Agency

There is no special counsel statute that covers a former president. Biden investigating a political foe was never something our forefathers foresaw.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

MarkTwain said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, she did not quite do that. Her whole premise for her ruling was the appeal is still active (therefore her dismissal could be reversed.)

If the case was dropped in its entirety, her premise would evaporate and she'd have no basis to rule on the report, yet alone block it. She acknowledged that in regard to Trump's attempt to intervene.

The legal basis for releasing the report is it is a legally required report and the law gives the Attorney General the express discretion to release the report publicly. (28 CFR 600.9)


Her ruling as to releasing the report "in camera" to certain members of Congress is dubious, by the way, which is why the 11th Circuit originally declined to block it themselves. But she ran out the clock and the current DOJ is, of course, rather unlikely to appeal it.

The report has been FOIA'd by members of the media. That very well might end up getting litigated.

---

Legally required report from who? A special counsel who was ruled as being illegally appointed and unconfirmed by the senate as required by law under 5 USC PART II, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II Subsection 1211

(b) The Special Counsel shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

That's a pretty big leap.

---

Wrong law. That statute is about the Office of Special Counsel which deals with federal employment issues. The current one is Hampton Dellinger who was confirmed by the Senate in March, 2024.

https://osc.gov/News/Pages/24-07-Senate-Confirms-Hampton-Dellinger.aspx

https://osc.gov/Agency

---

What the hell does Dellinger have to do with this case and this report? The docs case was dismissed because the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed by the Justice Department. That's Jack Smith and it's his report in question. Dellibger isn't mentioned in the dismissal.

🚨🇺🇸 FULL CIRCLE: MAR-A-LAGO DOCS HEADING BACK TO TRUMP AS PRESIDENT

Classified materials seized by FBI in 2022 will return to their original home - along with some interesting personal items.

The package includes: Top secret documents, golf shirts, and yes... Celine Dion… pic.twitter.com/RvDD4p09w0

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 5, 2025

105-pages later, Trump gets his documents returned to him.

Gosh I hope he made every single DOJ lacky that participated in the seizure in the first place be the same ones to walk the documents right back to Mar-A-Lago.

Must read thread!

The start of the documents case was perpetrated by Biden and a politically biased National Archivist.

2/5 Biden deputizing the National Archivist was reveled in a Spring 2022 letter to Team Trump notifying them that she revoked his privileges.

READ the application to raid and see that it speaks extensively about NARA; which is independent of any claims about classified docs!

— Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) February 9, 2025

Yes. The archivist was an insane Trump hater. She, Vindman, and Ciamarella should be tried for sedition.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

🚨🇺🇸 FULL CIRCLE: MAR-A-LAGO DOCS HEADING BACK TO TRUMP AS PRESIDENT

Classified materials seized by FBI in 2022 will return to their original home - along with some interesting personal items.

The package includes: Top secret documents, golf shirts, and yes... Celine Dion… pic.twitter.com/RvDD4p09w0

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 5, 2025

105-pages later, Trump gets his documents returned to him.

---

Interesting, the old guys in dark clothing and with badges are wearing face diapers when no one else is.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Gosh I hope he made every single DOJ lacky that participated in the seizure in the first place be the same ones to walk the documents right back to Mar-A-Lago.

---

Open up a documents office in Nome Alaska.

This case is officially over now.

JUST IN: The 11th Circuit just dismissed the case against Trump codefendants Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira, ending an unexplained two-week delay in granting the motion. pic.twitter.com/Aq32liTvMR

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 11, 2025

One hundred and five page thread over basically yet another nothing burger. A lot of dumb takes in this thread.

Now they need to sue the DOJ for their legal fees.