A quick filed late on Saturday in a Florida federal court argued that the attorney general’s release of the special counsel report would greatly impair the people named in that report’s report. All eyes then rest on Judge Aileen Cannon’s case to see how she responds to this season’s bomb processing.
The court filings scurried off exactly one year ago when Carlos De Oliveira and Waltine Nauta filed two ominous requests to forbid the transfer of the special counsel’s report. Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump were charged in the Southern District of Florida by particular lawyers Jack Smith for allegedly causing crimes relating to Trump’s engagement of secret documents.  ,
The charges were dropped by presiding judge Aileen Cannon last year, claiming that Jack Smith had been appointed an unconstitutional specific guidance and that she had no authority to pursue the alleged acts. The state appealed Judge Cannon’s departure of the prosecution to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but following Trump’s election, the DOJ dismissed its charm. But, the DOJ’s charm remains pending against Nauta and De Oliveira, leaving them in legal trouble.
In response, the two accused requested on Monday that both Judge Cannon and the Eleventh Circuit forbid the launch of the special counsel record. Given the uncertainty over which judge may decide that it had jurisdiction over the matter, the defendants filed two distinct but practically identical motions, one in each judge.
Judge Cannon also acted cautiously in a meticulous manner in light of the unusual nature of the case and the issues ‘ exclusivity: he stayed in the Eleventh Circuit’s order for three days while the Eleventh Circuit stayed the case’s preliminary ruling.
In the Eleventh Circuit, the DOJ opposed the order and argued the appellate judge may change Judge Cannon’s order. While the national administrative judge denied Nauta and De Oliveira’s Moton for an Order, it provided no reason for its logic. The Eleventh Circuit also ruled that the DOJ may file an appeal if it wanted to challenge Judge Cannon’s order, rather stating that the court may issue a see of appeal.
No receiving the judgement it wanted, the DOJ went crazy: It immediately filed a Notice of Appeal in the lower court but then filed an poor” See” to the Eleventh Circuit which, in substance, argued that the Eleventh Circuit screwed up and that it needed to instantly slow Judge Cannon’s three-day order. After the accused moved to reach that poor judge “notice”, the DOJ doubled down, filing at 12: 30 a. m. on Saturday an Emergency Movement for Summary for Reversal of Judge Cannon’s order. There was no obvious incident that required the Court to record a weekend activity while the appealing jury was closed, especially since Judge Cannon’s order was set to expire on Monday.
In fact, what the DOJ desired was for the Eleventh Circuit to modify its judgment and declare that Judge Cannon lacked the authority to impose an order. Although it is always possible that the Eleventh Circuit may act in the same way as the DOJ, it would be very unlikely for a national court of appeals to, in fact, rehear a situation based on an incorrectly filed “notice” where the government ignored the rules for requesting a hearing.
Thus, and absent a contrary decision from the Eleventh Circuit, the game is again in Judge Cannon’s court, which is why on Friday, Nauta and De Oliveira promptly filed a more movement in the lower court. Nauta and De Oliveira asked Judge Cannon to further compel the release of the Special Counsel’s record, pending the DOJ’s charm on the matter, or otherwise, pending a reading and ruling on its Motion for an Injunction.
By Saturday, the DOJ had responded, opposing any additional injunction. The DOJ retorted that only Volume II of the special counsel report addressed Nauta and De Oliveira and that the AG had already agreed not to make that report public while the criminal case was pending against the two defendants. Nauta and De Oliveira argued that there was no way to challenge the release of that portion of the Special Counsel report, citing Volume I, which dealt with an investigation into the 2020 election and certification.
On Saturday night, Judge Cannon issued a brief order for the DOJ to submit a statement regarding whether or not Volume I made any mention of Nauta and De Oliveira. In addition, the court was aware that several issues remained pending, including Nauta and De Oliveira’s request to extend the injunction and Trump’s motion to interfere.
Then, late Saturday, Harry MacDougal, the attorney for former Trump Administration DOJ attorney Jeff Clark, filed an emergency motion on behalf of Clark seeking leave to file an amicus brief or alternatively joining in Trump’s Motion to Intervene. In addition, that Motion requested a four-day administrative stay to allow the Court to consider the merits of the arguments.
And the merits are significant: As Clark’s suggested amicus curiae, or friend of the court brief, pointed out, the DOJ’s decision to “voluntarily hold back on publication of volume 2” due to the pending criminal case against Nauta and De Oliveira also leads to the conclusion that Volume I should not be released.
There is” an exactly analogous prejudice” to Clark, his attorney argued, adding that the prejudice is actually” compounded because Mr. Clark faces jeopardy in two cases and not just one, ..”. Specifically, Volume I “would severely prejudice Mr. Clark’s due process rights in two separate pending and directly related proceedings”, namely the Fulton County criminal case originally launched by the disqualified ( and disgraced ) DA Fani Willis, against Clark and dozens of other defendants in Georgia state court. Second, as Clark’s attorney argued, the lawfare extends beyond the criminal indictments to various bar disciplinary proceedings, such as the one against Clark currently pending before the D. C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility.
Clark’s attorney emphasized that the due process harm brought on by the release of Volume I extends far beyond his client:
This concentration of prejudices might affect Clark, too. Multiple individuals described in either the original or superseding indictments in the Election case are also facing related criminal prosecution in one or more States, and/or related bar disciplinary proceedings, to include attorneys John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Ken Chesebro, and Sidney Powell, but also non-attorneys former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Michael Roman, and possibly others. The publication of any report detailing their conduct would also violate their right to due process, and this violation would be accompanied by the same number of professional responsibility and Special Counsel regulations.
The release of Volume I also risks violating Trump’s due process rights, and here Clark’s attorney noted an important, but yet overlooked, point: The DOJ in dismissing charges against Trump related to the 2020 election did so without prejudice, meaning that after Trump leaves office, he still risks prosecution.  ,
Trump, for his part, has asked Judge Cannon to enjoin the release of the entire Special Counsel report. The president-elect has also sought to intervene in the case. Clark has now joined that motion. In addition, Clark further explains that, should the Court decide such an intervention is inappropriate, he will file a civil lawsuit against the DOJ within four days, asking for a four-day administrative stay to keep the injunction in the interim.
It would be outrageous for AG Garland to continue pushing for its release now that Clark has already revealed the significant due process harm that Volume I will have caused to him and potentially dozens of other Americans. But given the lawfare he has allowed to occur under his watch, it wouldn’t be surprising.
Stay tuned for updates throughout the day at @ProfMJCleveland.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge for nearly 25 years. Former full-time university professor, Cleveland teaches adjunct occasionally. Cleveland serves as a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. You can follow Cleveland on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland to learn more about her most cherished accomplishments, including her husband and son. Cleveland’s opinions are those of her personal life in this article.
