The Biden DOJ is out for blood.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has indicated that he intends to release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on the 2020 election interference case involving President-elect Donald Trump, provided that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals clears the way for such action. A recent court filing revealed that Garland plans to make Volume One of Smith’s final report public, which addresses the accusations that Trump sought to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. However, Garland has decided against releasing Volume Two, which pertains to the case involving Trump’s handling of classified documents.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) explained in a court document that while the first volume would be made available to Congress and the public, the second volume would be restricted to top members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Even those lawmakers, however, would be forbidden from discussing its contents publicly. This limited disclosure, according to the DOJ, would balance transparency and the public’s right to know with the need to safeguard the interests of the ongoing criminal proceedings against two co-defendants in the classified documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
It’s important to note that it is typical for special counsels to release a report summarizing their investigation, regardless of whether any charges are filed. In Smith’s case, however, the decision to prosecute has become largely irrelevant due to the longstanding Justice Department policy against pursuing criminal charges against a sitting president. Furthermore, Smith’s investigation into election interference was complicated by Trump’s unique status as a president-elect at the time. Smith is expected to step down before Trump’s inauguration on January 20, with the report potentially coming out within days.
However, Trump’s co-defendants, Nauta and De Oliveira, filed an emergency motion to block the release of Smith’s report, arguing that doing so would cause them “irreparable harm.” Judge Aileen Cannon, who had previously dismissed parts of Smith’s case, ruled temporarily in favor of the defendants, issuing an injunction to halt the release of the report until the appeals court makes a final determination.
Garland has made clear that he plans to release reports from other special counsels he has appointed, including the reports from John Durham, who investigated the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, and Robert Hur, who is currently investigating President Biden’s handling of classified documents. This decision to withhold or limit the public release of Smith’s report is in stark contrast to the transparency shown with those other investigations.
While the legal battles over these reports continue to unfold, the broader question remains: Is the Justice Department truly acting impartially, or is it playing politics by prolonging and publicizing these investigations at such a critical time for the nation? Many on the right see Garland’s actions as part of a larger effort to undermine Trump and disrupt his political future, casting doubt on the fairness and integrity of these investigations. As the situation develops, it’s becoming clear that the political ramifications of Garland’s decisions will continue to shape the landscape of American politics for months to come.