Two of Donald Trump’s former co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, are asking the court to halt Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing a "Final Report" tied to the dismissed Florida prosecution. 

In an emergency motion filed in the Southern District of Florida on Monday, the two argue that the report, if released, would violate court orders, infringe on their constitutional rights, and prejudice any potential future proceedings against them.

The Case Against the Report

Nauta and De Oliveira claim that Smith, whose appointment as Special Counsel was ruled unconstitutional by the court, lacks the authority to issue a report under federal regulations. The motion also emphasizes that the report would unfairly influence public opinion and taint any potential jury pool while legal appeals are still pending. Defense attorneys describe the report as a "one-sided narrative" that improperly uses grand jury materials and privileged information.

The Final Report promises to be a one-sided, slanted report, relying nearly exclusively onevidence presented to a grand jury and subject to all requisite protections—and which is known to Smith only as a result of his unconstitutional appointment—in order to serve a singular purpose: convincing the public that everyone Smith charged is guilty of the crimes charged. But Nauta’sand De Oliveira’s criminal cases are not over; the appeal of this Court’s dismissal order by Smithis still pending. The Government notably continued briefing the appeal even following thedismissal of the appeal as to President Trump.

The defendants argue that the report would serve as an impermissible "public verdict," undermining their right to a fair trial. They further claim that releasing the report would disregard federal grand jury secrecy rules and the court’s previous rulings that disqualified Smith from the case.

Breaking the Rules?

The idea that Smith is not only violating rules by releasing a report isn't where potential wrongdoing ends. According to those with experience in the federal legal realm, by even having access to certain materials, Smith might be part of a larger problem Merrick Garland and some folks within the DOJ could end up facing.

Could Merrick Garland and his staff, plus other DOJ Officials TBD potentially face criminal investigation for improper access/disclosure of Rule 6(e) materials to Jack Smith after he was DQ'd from the Florida case, and the D.C. case was dismissed?

Violations of Rule 6(e) are…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) January 7, 2025

Could Merrick Garland and his staff, plus other DOJ Officials TBD potentially face criminal investigation for improper access/disclosure of Rule 6(e) materials to Jack Smith after he was DQ'd from the Florida case, and the D.C. case was dismissed?  

Violations of Rule 6(e) are subject to a criminal penalty.

If Jack Smith still has access to those materials for purposes of writing his "Report" to the AG, has he been provided unauthorized access in violation of the Rule????

It's a tricky legal situation, but the quest to go after Donald Trump "no matter the cost" might leave Garland, Smith, and others with more problems than they started with.

A Request for Immediate Action

The defendants are urging the court to issue an injunction preventing Smith, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and the Department of Justice from finalizing or disseminating the report. They argue that its release would cause "irreparable harm" by violating due process and the rules governing criminal proceedings. A hearing on the matter has been requested to address these concerns fully.