Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Judge mulls release to Congress of Trump classified documents report

The Alto Lee Adams Sr. United States Courthouse on May 22 in Fort Pierce, Fla.  (Joe Raedle)
By Alan Feuer and David C. Adams New York Times

A federal judge in Florida put off making a ruling on Friday about whether the Justice Department can give members of Congress a report by the special counsel, Jack Smith, detailing his findings in the criminal case accusing President-elect Donald Trump of mishandling classified documents.

The decision by the judge, Aileen Cannon, to hold off issuing a ruling raised the possibility that any efforts to share that part of Smith’s report outside the Justice Department would be postponed until after Trump re-enters the White House on Monday. At that point, he and his officials would have the power to keep the report from seeing the light of day.

Cannon’s decision not to issue an immediate ruling came at the conclusion of a hearing in U.S. District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida, where prosecutors and defense lawyers argued about the Justice Department’s plan to release the volume not to the public, but to the four leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has said that the classified documents section of the two-volume report should not be made public at the moment because an appeal in that proceeding remains active as to Trump’s two co-defendants in the case and that any release of new information could be prejudicial to them.

But Trump’s lawyers and lawyers for the co-defendants took issue with Garland’s plan, arguing that giving the volume to Congress would only encourage lawmakers to leak it or talk about it in open session.

The lawyers were concerned about public discussion of the report because they claim the volume contains “false and derogatory” information that Trump’s congressional adversaries could use to undermine his transition “and his ability to govern our nation moving forward.”

Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, asked the government at one point why there was “such urgency to release” the report to Congress now, adding, “I am still not hearing a satisfactory answer to that question.”

Elizabeth Shapiro, one of the prosecutors, said that Garland’s remaining time in office was limited and that he wanted to see the release of the report “satisfied during his tenure.”

It remains unclear what specific revelations the volume contains because the document itself has never been made public and some of the discussions about it in court on Friday were conducted under seal. Still, court papers have left hints about what sorts of disclosures could in theory be in the report.

More than a year ago – well before Cannon dismissed the classified documents case in its entirety – Smith said in a filing that he planned to prove at trial why Trump had removed a trove of highly sensitive state secrets from the White House in 2021 and what he intended by retaining them. Because the case never went in front of a jury, prosecutors have never publicly addressed head-on the question of Trump’s motives – although they could do so in Smith’s report.

Moreover, Trump’s lawyers have complained, in a vague but vocal way, that the report implicates some “anticipated” members of his incoming administration. That could be a reference to witnesses like Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, who was forced to testify to a grand jury in the documents case after he sought to avoid appearing by asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The dispute about the classified documents report is one of the final fights still remaining from the two criminal cases that Smith, who stepped down as special counsel last week, filed against Trump in 2023. Aside from the classified documents indictment that Cannon oversaw in Florida, the special counsel also filed a separate indictment in Washington, charging Trump with plotting to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

But after Trump won the 2024 election, Smith was forced to drop all of the charges against him under a binding Justice Department policy that prohibits pursuing criminal prosecutions against a sitting president. Under a different Justice Department regulation, Smith was also required, at the completion of his work, to submit a final report about the two cases to Garland.

Last week, Garland released the volume of the report that Smith wrote about the election interference case in Washington. That volume said, among other things, that Smith was confident Trump would have been found guilty of the charges if the case had gone to trial.

Cannon could profoundly affect the future of the classified documents volume simply by avoiding any decision until after Inauguration Day. At that point, Trump would have control of the Justice Department and could pardon his two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, or simply order the case against them to be dropped.

He could also have officials in his Justice Department sit on the report and never release it to anyone.

If Cannon does allow decisions about the sole remaining – and perhaps most damaging – part of Smith’s report to drift into next week, it would follow a pattern she took throughout the classified documents case.

Over and over, Cannon granted a serious hearing to far-fetched issues that Trump’s lawyers raised in his defense. Her willingness to consider such arguments, which many jurists would have disposed of out of hand, resulted in long delays in the case and ultimately led to her dismissing the charges altogether.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.