“Each has substantial judicial experience, during which he has presided over federal criminal and civil cases, including federal cases involving matters of national security and privilege,” prosecutors wrote. Dearie, originally a nominee of former President Ronald Reagan, has served as a federal judge in New York since the 1980s. He retired in 2011 and is now a senior circuit judge. Dearie also served a seven-year term on the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA court. He was one of the judges who approved a request by the FBI and the Justice Department to monitor Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page as part of the federal investigation into whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It is unclear when U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will decide who the special master is. Cannon last week accepted Trump’s request for a third-party lawyer outside the government to review the seized materials and asked each side to submit proposed candidates. Cannon also ordered criminal investigators at the Department of Justice to stop using the seized materials as part of the ongoing investigation until the special master completes his or her review.
Trump opposes the DOJ nominees, but hasn’t said why
Earlier Monday, Trump said he opposed the two proposed Justice Department nominees to be the special master, but did not explain why. “Plaintiff objects to the proposed Justice Department nominees. Plaintiff believes there are specific reasons why those nominees are not preferred for service as a Special Master in this case,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. The Justice Department appointed Griffith, who served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., from 2005 to 2020, and Jones, a former federal prosecutor who was an expert in several recent high-profile investigations. The Trump team also nominated attorney Paul Hack Jr., a former partner at the Jones Day law firm. The Justice Department objected to Huck Jr., noting that he “does not appear to have similar experience” to the three judges. Trump’s lawyers argued Monday that the court did not ask for detailed reasoning and were trying to show “more respect for the candidates than any party.” “Plaintiff also alleges that it is more respectful of candidates of either party to withhold the grounds for opposition from a public, and likely to be widely circulated, pleading,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests the Court’s permission to specifically express our objections to the Government’s nominees only at such time as the Court determines a desire to receive and review such information.” Trump and the Justice Department have also disagreed on other key aspects of the special master’s powers, including how long the review should take, who is responsible for paying the special master and what kind of documents are subject to review. In a nod to the government’s hope for a speedy review of the thousands of documents seized by the FBI, the Justice Department wrote that “in choosing among the three candidates, the government respectfully requests that the Court consider and select the candidate who is better in the early position. performs the duties of the special master”. This story has been updated with additional details. CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report.
