US federal judge allows partial release of Trump election case report News
Sgt. Alicia Brand, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
US federal judge allows partial release of Trump election case report

A federal judge authorized the partial release on Monday of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on investigations into President-elect Donald Trump. The decision followed a federal appeals court’s decision on Thursday not to prevent the report’s release.

US District Judge Aileen Cannon rejected an emergency motion from Trump associates, Waltine Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, to block the release of Volume One of Smith’s report that addressed the investigation into Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. The motion argued that releasing any part of the report would violate their Fifth Amendment rights to a fair trial as the information contained within the report would be “highly prejudicial” to their ongoing criminal cases. Furthermore, they argued that Jack Smith’s investigation was “unconstitutional.”

Judge Cannon disagreed with Nauta and de Oliveira’s Fifth Amendment argument. She adopted the government’s view, concluding that “nothing in Volume One of the final report . . . directly or indirectly refers, relies, or bears in any respect upon any evidence or argument relevant to any of the charges alleged against Defendants.” The judge did not address the constitutionality claim.

However, Judge Cannon continued to block the release of Volume Two of the report dealing with Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. She concluded that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) plans to release Volume Two “would be inconsistent with the fair trial rights of Defendants.” In contrast to Volume One, Volume Two directly referenced both Nauta and de Oliveira and referred to them in their alleged roles to cover up classified document mishandling.

A hearing was ordered for January 17 to review the possible limited release of Volume Two to select members of Congress.

Criminal charges in both cases against Trump were dropped in November because Smith and the DOJ determined that prosecuting Trump, while his inauguration is impending, would be unconstitutional.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Connecticut adopts first modern constitution

On January 14, 1639, the first written governmental constitution in modern history was adopted in the Colony of Connecticut. The Fundamental Orders represented the first time that a government was based upon a written constitution anywhere in the world. Along with the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders served as bases for the United States Constitution 150 years later, which in turn influenced the development of later constitutions throughout the world. Three hundred and twenty-six years after the original Fundamental Orders were adopted by Connecticut, the modern Constitution of Connecticut was ratified.

Guatemala constitution takes effect

On January 14, 1986, the current constitution of Guatemala took effect.

Read the Spanish-language text of the constitution, as amended in 1993.

First constitution adopted by Connecticut

On January 14, 1639, Connecticut adopted its first constitution, one of the earliest such documents in the American colonies. Review the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.