The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that former President Donald Trump should not be allowed to intervene in the ongoing criminal case involving his former co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. While the case primarily concerns the charges against Nauta, Trump’s personal valet, and de Oliveira, the chief of maintenance at Mar-a-Lago, there is a separate legal dispute regarding the release of the second volume of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the Trump investigations.
The DOJ is pushing for the limited release of the second volume of the report to the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. This issue has been the subject of legal back-and-forth, with a hearing scheduled for January 17 to address the matter. The DOJ has argued that Trump’s motion to intervene is unnecessary because the remaining dispute does not directly concern him. Instead, the central question is whether the second volume of the report should be released to the committees, and if so, under what conditions to avoid prejudicing the defendants in the case.
Trump’s legal team has filed a motion to intervene, claiming that the release of the final report is improper and that Smith, the special counsel, has been disqualified by a court. They argue that Smith’s actions are politically motivated and that releasing such a detailed report could harm Trump’s legal standing. However, the DOJ has dismissed these claims, asserting that the motion does not meet the legal standards required for intervention in a criminal case.
The DOJ has emphasized that the issue at hand is not about Trump’s constitutional rights but rather about whether the report should be shared with the Judiciary Committees. The department argues that Trump’s attempt to intervene in the case is unwarranted, as the relief sought by Nauta and de Oliveira is identical to the relief Trump is pursuing. According to the DOJ, if Trump wants to prevent the report from being released to the committees, he should file a separate civil action rather than intervene in the criminal case.
In response to Trump’s motion, the DOJ has pointed out that the courts have limited circumstances in which third parties can intervene in criminal cases. Typically, intervention is only allowed when a third party’s federal or constitutional rights are at stake. In this case, the DOJ argues that Trump has not demonstrated any rights that would justify his intervention in the matter.
As the case moves forward, the primary focus is whether the second volume of Smith’s final report should be made available to the Judiciary Committees. The DOJ’s position is that Trump’s attempt to intervene is unnecessary, as the relief sought by the defendants in the case aligns with the issue Trump is attempting to address. The legal proceedings will continue to unfold as the court weighs whether to release the report under conditions designed to protect the defendants’ rights.
