Attorney General Merrick Garland’s handling of the investigation into Donald Trump’s actions surrounding the January 6th insurrection is widely criticized for its delay and perceived lack of decisiveness. While initially focusing on lower-level participants, Garland’s slow response to investigate Trump directly allowed time for the Supreme Court and other actors to hinder subsequent prosecutions. This inaction, coupled with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Trump v. United States*, is argued to have significantly weakened efforts to hold Trump accountable, ultimately contributing to the rise of reactionary forces. The author contends that Garland’s failure to act swiftly represents a significant dereliction of duty.
Read More
A federal judge blocked the Justice Department from releasing to Congress the portion of Jack Smith’s report detailing his classified documents investigation of President Trump. Judge Aileen Cannon granted a request from Trump’s co-defendants, citing concerns that the release would prejudice their ongoing criminal proceedings. She rejected the Justice Department’s argument that releasing the report was a historical practice, emphasizing the lack of congressional subpoenas or pending legislation related to the report. The judge found the Department’s justification insufficient and determined that congressional access would likely lead to public dissemination of sensitive information.
Read More
Jack Smith’s final report on the January 6th case unequivocally states that his case against Donald Trump was robust enough to secure a conviction. This declaration, while seemingly straightforward, carries significant weight given the intense scrutiny and political polarization surrounding the investigation. It highlights the strength of the evidence gathered and the legal arguments developed by Smith’s team, suggesting a high probability of success had the trial proceeded as planned.
The report’s conclusion directly addresses the central question of whether the prosecution’s case was viable. By stating that it could have “sustained a conviction,” Smith effectively counters any claims that the investigation was weak or lacked sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution.… Continue reading
Following Donald Trump’s reelection, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s cases against him concluded due to Justice Department guidelines prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president. Smith’s resignation, characterized by Trump as a firing, prompted a flurry of attacks from the president-elect, fueled by concerns over the impending release of Smith’s final report. Trump’s efforts to block the report’s release, despite a draft review by his legal team, highlight a potential legal battle. The report’s ultimate public release remains uncertain, with the possibility of Supreme Court involvement.
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith resigned from the Justice Department on January 10th, following the submission of a two-volume report on his investigations into Donald Trump. The report, detailing findings on Trump’s post-2020 election conduct and handling of classified documents, is currently subject to legal disputes regarding its release. Trump’s legal team and co-defendants’ attorneys are attempting to prevent portions of the report’s public dissemination, citing potential prejudice to their cases. The Justice Department has pledged to release the report, but has committed to delaying the public release of the classified documents portion until the relevant case concludes.
Read More
The Justice Department secured permission to release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report detailing President-elect Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, though a three-day delay remains pending potential Supreme Court intervention. This ruling comes as the Supreme Court also allowed Trump’s New York hush-money case sentencing to proceed. Trump faces multiple indictments related to election interference, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. While Attorney General Garland intends to release the election interference section of the report, volume two concerning classified documents will remain unreleased pending related cases.
Read More
The Justice Department intends to release special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but will withhold the section concerning classified documents at Mar-a-Lago while charges against Trump co-defendants remain pending. This decision follows a judge’s temporary block on the report’s release. The department argues the release of the election interference portion is justified and will be shared with congressional leaders, while the classified documents section will remain confidential to protect the co-defendants’ interests. The Justice Department is appealing the judge’s order, seeking to release the election interference findings completely.
Read More
Following the conclusion of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Donald Trump, Trump’s legal team demanded the Justice Department withhold the final report, citing the Presidential Transition Act and presidential immunity. This request, sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland, intensified calls for the report’s public release. Smith’s report, covering investigations into classified documents and election subversion, was submitted to Garland, who will decide on its public disclosure. Despite Trump’s team’s efforts and a related request to Judge Cannon, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals currently holds jurisdiction over the case.
Read More
The Judicial Conference rejected requests to refer Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Justice Department for ethics investigations. This decision, outlined in letters to Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson, cited both justices’ amended financial disclosures and legal uncertainty regarding the Conference’s authority over Supreme Court justices. The Conference Secretary argued that Congressional authorization would be necessary for such referrals. Despite these actions, critics contend the Judicial Conference failed to adequately address whether Justice Thomas willfully violated disclosure laws.
Read More
The U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer ethics complaints against Justices Thomas and Jackson to the Justice Department, citing the lack of clarity on whether such referrals are permissible and noting ongoing external investigations. Justice Thomas will adhere to updated disclosure guidelines for gifts and hospitality, addressing concerns about unreported luxury trips. Justice Jackson has already amended her disclosures. The Conference’s inaction underscores the need for Congress to establish a more robust mechanism for investigating judicial ethics violations.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood