驳回唐纳德·特朗普机密文件案的美国地区法官艾琳·坎农(Aileen Cannon)裁定，司法部可以公开发布特别顾问杰克·史密斯报告的第一卷，涵盖他的选举干预案反对川普，但保留对DOJ是否可以将机密文件案的第二卷提交国会领导层审查的裁决。
坎农计划在1月17日，也就是特朗普就职典礼的三天前，就此事举行听证会。
坎农上周发布了一项禁令暂时封锁整个报告的发布，包括1月6日案件的第一卷和机密文件案件的第二卷，因为司法部似乎准备公开发布这份报告。司法部长梅里克·加兰(Merrick Garland)曾发誓要向国会高层成员公布机密文件卷，并公开发布选举干预卷。
特朗普在机密文件案中的前共同被告、长期助手沃尔特·诺塔(Walt Nauta)和工作人员卡洛斯·德·奥利维拉(Carlos De Oliveira)曾试图阻止这两份报告的发布，但DOJ在一份声明中证实周末归档第一卷与Nauta和De Oliveira正在进行的案件中的证据或指控无关。
在坎农裁决之前的一份文件中，Nauta和De Oliveira的律师再次要求坎农延长她的命令，阻止发布史密斯的整个最终报告，并举行一次关于永久禁止发布报告的听证会。
律师们写道，“政府受政治优先考虑的驱使，试图在这个有序的过程中采取强硬手段，但却一再未能遵守既定的规则和程序。”
坎农的裁决允许发布该报告1月6日的一卷，似乎保留了她最初的三天禁令，该禁令将于今晚午夜到期。
虽然坎农先前认为史密斯被任命为特别顾问是违反宪法的驳回了特朗普的机密文件案在此基础上，她在周一的五页命令中写道，她在这件事上的推理“仅限于”机密文件案，并“不足以”阻止与前总统试图推翻2020年选举有关的卷。
关于该报告机密文件卷的发布，坎农写道，即使限制其发布给众议院和参议院司法委员会的领导人，“也有可能不可逆转地严重损害被告在这场刑事诉讼中的合法权利”，此前特朗普的前共同被告的律师曾辩称，国会议员可能会泄露报告并伤害他们的客户。
王牌不服罪2023年，40项刑事指控与他离开白宫后处理机密材料有关，此前检察官表示，他多次拒绝归还数百份包含机密信息的文件，并采取措施阻挠政府从他的Mar-a-Lago庄园取回这些文件。前总统，连同诺塔和德奥利维拉，在一次听证会上表示不认罪替代起诉书涉嫌试图删除Mar-a-Lago的监控录像。
特朗普还不服罪2023年，以独立的罪名进行“犯罪计划”，以推翻2020年选举的结果，试图颠覆民主并继续掌权。
两种情况被驳回特朗普在11月再次当选后，司法部的一项长期政策禁止起诉在任总统。
史密斯(姓氏)辞去特别检察官职务周五，在完成案件并向加兰提交报告后。
在另一个案件中，亚利桑那州司法部长克里斯·梅耶斯起诉11人包括特朗普的盟友鲁迪·朱利安尼(Rudy Giuliani)和马克·梅多斯(Mark Meadows)在内，被指控试图推翻她所在州的2020年选举结果，周日写信给加兰，要求获得史密斯在1月6日调查中的案件档案，以“帮助确保那些应该承担责任的人被追究责任。”
“今天，我的办公室有一个仅存的案件，其中包括对国家行为者的指控，”她的信中说。“我坚定不移地起诉大陪审团的起诉书，因为那些试图在2020年颠覆民主的人必须承担责任。”
信中还要求DOJ提供调查中发现的任何“开脱罪责的材料”。
它还提到了州法官最近的一项命令，该命令批准了梅多斯的请求，即在案件中发现有助于他辩护的证据。不过，这封信承认，州法官“不能强迫联邦机构披露信息。”
"出于上述原因，马里科帕县高级法院的命令应该得到执行。或者，考虑这是根据《信息自由法》提出的请求，”信中写道。"信息披露将确保司法公正符合法律规定."
Judge rules that DOJ can release Jack Smith's final report on his Jan. 6 case against Trump
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed Donald Trump's classified documents case, has ruled that the Justice Department can publicly release Volume One of special counsel Jack Smith's report, covering hiselection interference caseagainst Trump -- but is reserving ruling on whether the DOJ can make Volume Two, on the classified documents case, available to congressional leadership for review.
Cannon has scheduled a hearing on that matter for Jan. 17, three days before Trump's inauguration.
Cannon last week issued an injunctiontemporarily blockingthe release of the entire report -- both the first volume on the Jan. 6 case and the second volume on the classified documents case -- as the Justice Department appeared poised to publicly release the report. Attorney General Merrick Garland had vowed to release the classified documents volume to top members of Congress and to publicly release the election interference volume.
Trump's former co-defendants in his classified documents case, longtime aide Walt Nauta and staffer Carlos De Oliveira, had sought to block the release of both reports, but the DOJ attested in afiling over the weekendthat Volume One has has no bearing on the evidence or charges related Nauta and De Oliveira in their ongoing case.
In a filing overnight, prior to Cannon's ruling, lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveira again asked Cannon to extend her order blocking the release of Smith's entire final report and to hold a hearing about permanently prohibiting the report's release.
"The Government, driven by political priorities that have no place in a criminal trial setting, seeks to strong-arm its way through this orderly process and has repeatedly failed to abide by established rules and procedure," the lawyers wrote.
Cannon's ruling permitting the release of the report's Jan. 6 volume appears to leave in place her original three-day injunction, which expires tonight at midnight.
While Cannon previously deemed that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed special counsel -- anddismissed Trump's classified documents caseon that basis -- her reasoning on that matter is "confined" to the classified documents case and is "insufficient" to block the volume related to the former president's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, she wrote in her Monday's five-page order.
Regarding the release of the classified documents volume of the report, Cannon wrote that even limiting its release to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees "risks irreversibly and substantially impairing the legal rights of Defendants in this criminal proceeding," after lawyers for Trump's former co-defendants had argued that members of Congress could leak the report and harm their clients.
Trumppleaded not guiltyin 2023 to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information and took steps to thwart the government's efforts to retrieve them from his Mar-a-Lago estate. The former president, along with Nauta and De Oliveira, pleaded not guilty in asuperseding indictmentto allegedly attempting to delete surveillance footage at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump alsopleaded not guiltyin 2023 to separate charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
Both caseswere dismissedfollowing Trump's reelection in November due to a longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.
Smithresigned as special prosecutoron Friday after wrapping up the cases and submitting his report to Garland.
In a separate case, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who in Aprilindicted 11 individuals, including Trump allies Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results in her state, wrote to Garland on Sunday requesting access to Smith's case file in his Jan. 6 probe in order to "help ensure that those who should be held accountable are."
"Today, my office has one of the only remaining cases that includes charges against national actors," her letter said. "I have held steadfast to prosecuting the grand jury's indictment because those who tried to subvert democracy in 2020 must be held accountable."
The letter also asked the DOJ for any "exculpatory material" unearthed in the probe.
It also referenced a recent order from a state judge that granted a request from Meadows for discovery in the case to help aid in his defense. The letter, though, acknowledges that the state judge "cannot compel disclosure from a federal agency."
"For the reasons discussed above, the Maricopa County Superior Court's order should be fulfilled. In the alternative, consider this a request under the Freedom of Information Act," the letter states. "Disclosure will ensure justice is done consistent with the rule of law."
