Left: Former President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File). Right: Special counsel Jack Smith. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin). Inset: Judge Aileen M. Cannon (U.S. Senate).
Former President Donald Trump categorized special counsel Jack Smith as an arm of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign through a recent filing in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.
Since early February, the government, the defendants, and even the judge overseeing the case have been locked in a battle over the public release of a wide batch of discovery materials. The government aims to keep those documents entirely under lock and key. Meanwhile, the defense and the judge want those documents — including the names of government witnesses and the FBI code name of a separate investigation — to be released with minimal redactions.
Trump’s eight-page filing was submitted Friday in response to the government’s Feb. 8 motion for reconsideration. In that prior motion, Smith accused the court of making a “clear error” and facilitating “manifest injustice.” The order mandating the release of the disputed discovery materials was paused in response to the special counsel’s motion. Defense attorneys were given until Feb. 23 to respond.
Trump says U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon got the law correct in ordering the release of the documents — while ridiculing Smith’s other arguments as an affront to the law and transparency.
“The Special Counsel’s Office has repeatedly demonstrated that they believe themselves to be entitled to disclose selective details of this case to try to support President Biden’s campaign efforts,” the filing reads.
The response also says the government’s complaints are not serious.
“For the Office, ‘manifest injustice’ is shorthand for a situation where the prosecution feels their unlawful demands should have been treated with deference by the Court, but instead, the Court properly rejected conclusory submissions lacking adequate legal and factual detail to justify hiding the Defendants’ filings from the public and the media,” Trump’s attorneys argue. “The Office’s disappointment in the outcome is not a basis for relief.”
Trump argues that various behind-the-scenes efforts by the government, including sealed court filings and ex parte proceedings, “reveal unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical behavior by participants in the investigation and prosecution.”
Specific details about those alleged violations, however, are not contained in the 45th president’s response to the special counsel.
More Law&Crime coverage: The Trump Docket: Jack Smith and Mar-a-Lago judge set for major showdown over protecting witnesses in documents case
The filing largely argues that Cannon “correctly applied” precedent when ordering the disclosure of the documents in question.
In the government’s motion for reconsideration, the special counsel argued the Trump-appointed judge applied incorrect standards for discovery materials and that her reasoning when denying a request to keep the documents hidden failed to meet long-held legal standards.
Trump, on Friday, argued it was actually the government who failed to understand the relevant and controlling prior case law — by confusing civil discovery with discovery in a criminal case.
“Discovery motions pursuant to the civil rules bear no resemblance to the Defendants’ motions to compel in this criminal case, in which the Defendants seek to vindicate important constitutional rights through court filings in this public forum,” the Trump filing reads. “No case the Office has cited suggests otherwise, and the Office did not establish ‘good cause’ for sealing.”
Trump’s filing also argues the “First Amendment right of access” would win out even if Smith had been able to show good cause for sealing the documents. Only in the most limited circumstances, the Trump response argues, can the public and the press be kept in the dark about certain aspects of a criminal case. And, the response continues, this “heavy burden” is on the government to prove. Trump argues Smith has failed to meet that burden.
The filing also frames the special counsel’s major argument for sealing as a “lawless” interpretation of the law.
Trump’s attorneys also referenced a minor-but-related issue in the case: an exhibit filed under seal which the government has argued proves the need for sealing all of the documents. Cannon previously allowed the government to keep the exhibit away from the defendants entirely so she could inspect it. Then, she ordered the government to allow the defendants access to the exhibit.
Again, the defendants replied with ridicule upon inspection of the exhibit — while divulging general details about its contents. And they reiterated their claim that Smith is trying to help Biden.
From Trump’s motion, at length:
[I]t is now clear to the defense, as we are sure it was clear to the Court upon initial receipt of the exhibit, that the document lends virtually no support to the broad sealing demands by the Special Counsel’s Office. Rather, the exhibit suggests that a civilian witness was harassed months ago — within weeks of the decision by the Special Counsel’s Office to disclose information from that witness in a gratuitous speaking indictment, which the Office used to try to prejudice the Defendants and to promote themselves and President Biden.
Earlier on Friday, Trump’s defense team submitted multiple other filings in the classified documents under Cannon’s orders — including a motion to dismiss the case entirely on immunity grounds.
Brandi Buchman contributed to this report.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
