Staff Reports
In yet another chapter of the ongoing saga surrounding Donald Trump, two of his former co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, are taking a bold stand against Special Counsel Jack Smith. They have filed an emergency motion in a Florida court aiming to block the release of a so-called “Final Report” linked to a previously dismissed prosecution in Florida. The defendants make a compelling argument that releasing this report could violate court orders and infringe upon their constitutional rights, all while potentially skewing any future court proceedings.
Their motion raises the eyebrow-raising claim that Smith, who has already been deemed unconstitutional in his role as Special Counsel by the court, lacks the necessary authority to publish any report. Nauta and De Oliveira contend that the report threatens to sway public opinion and pollute the jury pool, essentially serving as a de facto “public verdict” before their legal issues are resolved. The defense attorneys describe the report as a “one-sided narrative,” cherry-picking evidence and neglecting the broader context of their cases, which are still ongoing. The legal chess game continues with appeals still in play, making the premature release of any report particularly dubious.
MORE: Trump himself is asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to block Jack Smith form releasing a final report, claiming it would violate presidential transition laws and infringe on his constitutional immunity from criminal procedures. He wants Garland to let Bondi decide. pic.twitter.com/rAOuIWUkHy
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 7, 2025
Adding another layer to this complicated story, the defendants’ team cites grand jury secrecy rules that Special Counsel Smith could be disregarding if he succeeds in releasing his report. The concern isn’t just about fairness—it’s about the integrity of the entire judicial process. If Smith’s report is based on evidence obtained through a process riddled with issues, Nauta and De Oliveira’s civil liberties could be significantly compromised.
However, the controversy doesn’t end there. Legal insiders are questioning whether Merrick Garland and his Department of Justice affiliates could find themselves in hot water for granting Smith access to classified materials after his disqualification from the case. It raises a critical question: Are they flirting with criminal violations by allowing Smith to utilize evidence that should be off-limits? The mere act of producing this report could unveil more than just a flawed narrative; it might expose a broader conspiracy of impropriety within the DOJ, leaving Garland and his associates scrambling to defend their actions.
Given the stakes, Nauta and De Oliveira’s team is not passive; they’re calling for immediate judicial intervention. They want the court to issue an injunction to prevent Smith, along with Attorney General Garland, from disseminating the report. The defendants argue that the potential harm from releasing such prejudicial material is not just theoretical; it poses a real threat to their right to a fair trial and the integrity of the criminal process as a whole. A hearing has been requested for the court to address these serious concerns, underscoring the urgency and gravity of the situation.
This dramatic legal battle encapsulates the current climate of political warfare that continues to overshadow the judicial system. It raises not only questions of legality and constitutional rights but also potential criminal liability for those pursuing this high-stakes campaign against Trump and his associates. As the clock ticks, the defendants are doubling down on their pursuit of justice in a landscape that seems increasingly hostile to their rights, all while the American public watches closely to see how this farce might unfold.
