On Monday, a federal court prohibited the Justice Department from providing members of Congress with the final report of former special counsel Jack Smith regarding the case involving the classified papers against Donald Trump.
While an appeal involving Trump’s co-defendants in the case is still proceeding, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, determined that the Justice Department did not urgently need to share the findings with the chair and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Then-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated earlier this month that he would share the report with the heads of the committees for a private review “upon your request and agreement not to release any information” regarding the report publicly, but he would not make it public until the appeals involving Trump co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira were resolved.
In her ruling, Cannon stated that no such request had been made and implied that Congressmen could not be relied upon to keep the report’s contents private.
“Given the very strong public interest in this criminal proceeding and the absence of any enforceable limits on the proposed disclosure, there is certainly a reasonable likelihood that review by members of Congress as proposed will result in public dissemination of all or part of Volume II,” she stated.
The majority of the material in Smith’s report, which was revealed earlier this month, came from public court documents in the case. It described his inquiry into Trump’s attempts to maintain power after the 2020 election.
According to Cannon, the case involving secret documents has a separate volume. The judge stated that the report includes “detailed and voluminous” information summarizing the case against Trump, much of which “has not been made public in court filings,” in addition to the existence of co-defendants that Trump did not have in the election meddling case.
Cannon also attacked the DOJ’s claim that Garland was pressed for time and wished to submit the final report to Congress in accordance with the custom of all Special Counsels.
“These statements do not reflect well on the Department,” she stated. “Even in restricted cases, there is no ‘historical tradition’ of reporting to Congress as a Special Counsel while criminal proceedings are still ongoing. In actuality, this hasn’t happened once up until this point.
“There is no indication of pending legislative activity that could be aided by the proposed disclosure of Volume II to the specified members of Congress,” the judge wrote, criticizing the DOJ’s position that the members of Congress must view the report immediately for “possible legislative reforms regarding the use of special counsels.”
“Prosecutors play a special role in our criminal justice system and are entrusted and expected to do justice,” the judge said. “The Department of Justice s position on Defendants Emergency Motion as to Volume II has not been faithful to that obligation.”
A request for comment was not immediately answered by the Justice Department.
The charges against Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira included hindering the subsequent investigation and allegedly participating in a plot to assist Trump keep highly classified papers that were wrongfully in his possession after he left the White House in 2021.
Last year, Cannon decided that Smith’s appointment was illegal and dropped the criminal case. Citing a Justice government legal document that states the government cannot charge a sitting president, prosecutors appealed the decision but then withdrew their appeal of Trump’s case after his election victory in November.
Earlier this month, Smith and Garland both resigned.