… was prepared after the case dismissal, using materials obtained through this criminal case's discovery, without seeking a stay of the dismissal order — making its creation and any external release unlawful and in violation of the dismissal.
- Volume II contains protected discovery materials under the court's June 2023 Rule 16 Protective Order (ECF 27), which bars public disclosure without consent or court approval. This includes interview transcripts, search warrant info, grand jury-subpoenaed records, and potentially Rule 6(e) grand jury material or attorney-client privileged information.
… as phony, baseless accusations of Trump DOJ violating court orders.
As I noted in the Halligan dismissal order and threats by at least one judge to hold her in contempt for continuing to sign her name as "US Attorney" in court filings, Jack Smith continued to represent himself as "Special Counsel Jack Smith" for MONTHS after Cannon removed him as special counsel in the documents case.
She called him out again today in an order prohibiting the release of Smith's "report" on the docs investigation, which Smith prepared after he was disqualified. Smith used discovery in the dismissed case to prepare the report and, along with AG Garland, tried to publish the document before Trump was inaugurated. (Cannon denied that stunt as well.)
Cannon: "Despite the Court’s holding in July 2024 that 'the actions of Special Counsel Smith in connection with this proceeding must be set aside' due to his unconstitutional appointment Special Counsel Smith and his team went ahead for months, undeterred, preparing Volume II using discovery collected in connection with this proceeding and expending government funds in the process. Defendants learned of this continued work in December 2024 through media reports and then timely raised their objections to Special Counsel Smith—but he continued unabated, offering defendants only the courtesy of brief review under strict conditions, including forced deletion of discovery materials in the custody of the defense."
She continued. "To say this chronology represents, at a minimum, a concerning breach of the spirit of the Dismissal Order is an understatement, IF NOT AN OUTRIGHT VIOLATION OF IT." (Emphasis added.)
So will the media offer the same level of performative outrage about Smith's ACTUAL contempt of court conduct for MONTHS that it has offered on a near-daily basis about baseless allegations Trump DOJ prosecutors are intentionally defying court orders?
… Carlos De Olivera) delete all discovery files prior to a limited to review of the documents "report." Discovery in the case was subject to numerous closed door hearings under CIPA rules.
Here is another banger by Cannon: "Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges. As a result, the former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order. "
Again--will reporters and "legal experts" denounce Smith for violating a court order and repeatedly attempting to stomp on the Constitutional rights of the defendants in this case?
The conduct cited here by Cannon--which I have also publicly noted at the time and recently in light of other disqualification orders related to Trump US Attorney nominees)--represents MORE fodder to bring charges against Jack Smith.
Clear cut case of contempt of court in addition to the other evidence of misconduct, malfeasance by Smith and his team.
