SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
classified documents
‘Damning’ New Evidence Suggests Trump Stole Classified Documents to Advance Business Interests
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate" to hide former special counsel Jack Smith's report, wondered Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.
Mar 25, 2026
Democrats on the US mHouse Judiciary Committee on Wednesday demanded that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice "stop the cover-up" of former special counsel Jack Smith's full investigation into Trump's retention of classified documents following his first term, after new material sent to the panel revealed that some documents were stolen to advance the president's business interests.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi about "cherry-picked documents" related to Smith's investigations into Trump's taking of classified documents, which he stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The DOJ has regularly produced documents for the Judiciary Committee as Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has sought to portray Smith as having a partisan vendetta against the president, said Raskin. Smith led investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results during the Biden administration. Last month US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, permanently blocked the release of Smith's final report on the documents case.
Raskin wrote Wednesday that even as Jordan has embarked on a "vindictive campaign" against Smith and has sought a narrow selection of material from the DOJ, Bondi had "quite amazingly missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon."
Those documents include a January 13, 2023 memorandum from prosecutors who said the FBI had determined Trump retained documents that "would be pertinent to certain business interests.” The documents "established a motive for retaining them" that related to Trump's businesses.
Trump and his family have garnered condemnation for profiting off the presidency, with the family raking in more than $5 billion in cryptocurrency profits since he took office for a second time, and Trump's two eldest sons investing in a drone company that is vying for Pentagon contracts as the president wages war on Iran.
The prosecutors' memo also says the retention of some of the documents represented "an aggravated potential harm to national security," with one "particularly sensitive document" accessible only by an estimated six people in the US government, including the president, before he took it to his private property.
Additionally, the memo says prosecutors had "identified a classified map that we believe Trump may have shown to individuals on board” his private airplane in June 2022. Susie Wiles, the CEO of Trump's super political action committee and now the White House chief of staff, "was aboard and witnessed this event. Raskin's letter includes a flight manifest listing 14 people who were aboard Trump's private plane when he allegedly showed the classified map, but all of the names were redacted.
Raskin emphasized that without access to the second volume of Smith's final report, the Judiciary Committee cannot confirm what the classified map shows, the relationship between his business interest and the classified documents, or what the especially sensitive material is.
The congressman noted that some facts are known about Trump's activities around the time that he allegedly showed the classified map:
We do know that around the time of this flight to Bedminster, President Trump was entering into partnerships with Saudi-backed LIV Golf and state-linked real estate firm Dar al Arkan. A month after this flight, in July 2022, President Trump played golf at Bedminster with Yasir al-Rumayyan, head of the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia—the same official who plied the Trump family with tens of millions of dollars as the family began to run out of money between terms... We also know that there are reports that Donald Trump, at one point while on the phone with his ghostwriter, “made a reference to having classified records relating to the bombing of Iran.” He also reportedly boasted that it was only the hawks who wanted to attack Iran, not him, and that he had Pentagon war plans “done by the military and given to me” about such a potential attack.
"If this map is related to our military posture in the Middle East, and it was in fact shown to any foreign official, Saudi or otherwise, that would amount to an unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform who are currently valiantly fighting in President Trump’s disastrous war against Iran," wrote Raskin.
"It is now clear that DOJ is in possession of evidence that President Trump has already endangered national security to further the interests of Trump family businesses," he wrote. "It is time for you to stop the cover-up and allow the American people to know what secrets he betrayed and how he may have cashed in on them."
Raskin demanded information from the DOJ regarding who accessed the classified materials, whether any foreign actors were given access, and what the documents contain.
“Every new detail that comes to light about the report Judge Cannon has gone to great lengths to keep hidden underscores the same basic truth: The public is being denied access to critical information about one of the most serious national security scandals in American history,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of the government watchdog American Oversight. “While fragments of the factual record have seen the light of day, the full report remains under seal because Judge Cannon has prioritized the president’s personal interests over transparency. The public has a right to see special counsel Smith’s findings in full. Blocking the report’s release only serves to protect those in power and prevent accountability.”
After Raskin's letter was released, the DOJ took the social media to accuse him and Smith of being "blinded by hatred of President Trump" and pronounce the department "the most transparent in history."
"This letter is nothing more than a cheap political stunt, almost as if taking cues from members of the corrupt Jack Smith prosecution team," said the DOJ.
The House Judiciary Committee Democrats retorted that the administration "is doing legal gymnastics to prevent the American people from ever seeing special counsel Jack Smith's full report on how Trump stole classified documents to advance his corrupt business interests."
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate to keep Smith's report under lock and key?" they asked. "Stop the cover-up, release the evidence, and let the American people decide for ourselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tries to Permanently Stop DOJ From Releasing Jack Smith Report on Classified Documents Case
"Does he want the Smith report to be locked up with the Epstein files?"
Jan 21, 2026
As his administration continues dragging its feet in releasing the Epstein files, President Donald Trump is pushing to keep another potentially damning set of Justice Department documents hidden from the public.
On Tuesday, Trump filed a 19-page motion requesting that the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida step in to prohibit the DOJ’s planned release of Volume II of the final report prepared by former Special Counsel Jack Smith next month. The volume relates to the president’s handling of classified documents after leaving office in 2021.
Trump was indicted by a grand jury for 37 felony counts following Smith's investigation, 31 of which involved violations of the Espionage Act, after transporting "scores of boxes" full of classified materials, including top-level military and intelligence secrets, to his home at Mar-a-Lago and showing them off to people without security clearances.
But Smith ultimately dropped the case in November 2024 after it became clear that Trump's reelection would shield him from legal liability.
It's strange for the President of the United States to be litigating in his personal capacity against the Justice Department he runs — but he's seeking an order barring "current, former and future" DOJ officials from releasing Jack Smith's second volume. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
[image or embed]
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 6:38 PM
On January 7, 2025, just days before Trump reassumed office, the DOJ released Volume I of Smith's report, which pertained to Trump's attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election by spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud, which culminated in the attack on the US Capitol building by a mob of his supporters on January 6, 2021.
Though Trump's indictment in that case was also dropped following his reelection, the report was released under DOJ rules requiring public disclosure of all investigative reports after cases conclude.
That report described Trump as having undertaken an “unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power,” a scheme in which he knowingly spread information casting doubt on the election result even after his own staff confirmed it to be false and he acknowledged his loss in private.
Unlike the election case, the classified documents case was dismissed in July 2024 by the Trump-appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon of the same district court, who ruled that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unlawful.
Cannon also issued an injunction blocking the release of the report to Congress, but only until February 24, 2026, so as not to prejudice the legal proceedings against Trump's co-defendants, former aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos De Oliveira, who were accused of helping him illegally stash documents and hide them from investigators.
Citing her previous ruling, Trump is now asking Cannon to permanently block the report, claiming that, because of her ruling against Smith, "all acts undertaken" by him, including the creation and release of the report, are "void."
Not only does he seek to prohibit the "current" DOJ from releasing it, but also "former and future" DOJ officials from ever releasing it, as it would result in the "public dissemination of sensitive grand jury materials, attorney-client privileged information, and other informationderived from protected discovery materials, raising significant statutory, due process, and privacy concerns for President Trump and his former co-defendants."
Trump's request to permanently spike the report immediately drew comparisons to the Epstein files, which remain almost entirely unreleased by the DOJ nearly a month after the deadline mandated by law, which was signed by Trump himself after being passed in November.
For over a year, efforts to halt the release of Smith's report have fueled concerns of a cover-up and raised questions about whether Cannon has any authority to issue rulings at all, since the case has been dismissed.
In a piece for MS NOW (then MSNBC) last year, after the first report was released, legal analyst Glenn Kirschner warned that if the second one were buried in perpetuity, it could allow Trump to escape legal consequences after his term is up.
"If there is no disclosure of Volume II to members of Congress, what might a Trump-led DOJ do to the evidence?" he asked. "Might it be destroyed in an attempt to make sure Trump is never held to account for the classified documents crimes? Recall that the documents case was dismissed without prejudice, which means the case could theoretically be refiled once Trump leaves office."
His colleague, former US Attorney Joyce Vance, noted the peculiarity of Cannon's assertion of authority in a case that had already been dismissed.
"The strangest thing about this entire proceeding is that Judge Cannon continues to issue orders when there is no case pending in front of her," she said. "That’s not how a court’s jurisdiction is supposed to work.”
After appearing at a closed-door deposition last month as part of an inquiry launched by Republicans, Smith is scheduled to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday at 10 am ET.
Smith's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, told the Associated Press earlier this month that "Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump's alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cover-Up Feared as Epstein Files Law Lets DOJ Redact Info Sensitive to ‘National Security’
"Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation," said independent journalist Ken Klippenstein. "But the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people."
Nov 20, 2025
After its near-unanimous approval in Congress and following months of sustained public pressure, President Donald Trump signed a law on Wednesday releasing the files from the FBI's investigation into the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The law is called the "Epstein Files Transparency Act," but critics fear that a key provision could allow the US Department of Justice to keep critical information from coming to light.
The law requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to "make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials" related to the investigations into Epstein and his partner and coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell within the next 30 days.
But critically, it gives Bondi expansive power to redact large amounts of information, potentially burying material that may be incriminating to the president, whose relationship with the disgraced financier has become the subject of greater speculation with each new set of documents released.
One provision allows Bondi to redact documents to strike information that "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution." Last week, Trump ordered Bondi to open investigations into Epstein's connections with several prominent Democrats: Among them are former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.
Lawmakers have raised fears that these investigations were enacted to give Bondi greater leeway to scrub information from the record. On Monday, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), the law's Republican cosponsor, warned that the DOJ "may be trying to use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files."
But another largely overlooked section may give her even more sweeping authority. The law states that information may also be redacted "if the attorney general makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security." It also allows her to redact information deemed "to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
While the law requires Bondi to issue a written justification for each piece of redacted information and also clarifies that no file shall be "withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary," it does not define the criteria Bondi must use to determine whether something is in the interest of America's "national security," "national defense," or "foreign policy."
"One glaring loophole will prevent full transparency: It’s called national security," wrote independent journalist Ken Klippenstein Monday, as the House moved toward a vote on the files. "Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation, but the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people by depriving them of information."
There are many cases in recent memory of the US using national security as a justification to withhold information from the public. Earlier this year, the Trump administration used its "state secrets" privilege to deny a judge's request to turn over information related to its extrajudicial deportation flights to El Salvador, arguing that it would compromise its diplomatic relations with that country. Meanwhile, past administrations have used national security to justify keeping the public in the dark about everything from the military's use of torture to the government's mass surveillance of American citizens.
While the primary interest in Epstein surrounds his alleged role in facilitating a sex trafficking ring for the political and economic elite, there are clear cases where the government could attempt to use national security as a justification to keep information hidden.
For example, recent documents have revealed the extent of his involvement with foreign intelligence and dealmaking. Drop Site News has reported extensively on Epstein's long history working as an informal fixer for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to secure deals with several foreign nations that benefited Israel and attempted to shape global politics, including in the United States, to its interests.
Klippenstein has also raised concerns about the inclusion of the word "unclassified" in the bill, which he noted "is an official word that in theory only exists when it comes to national security matters; that is, that the release of such information could cause 'harm' to national security."
He said he asked Massie and the law's Democratic cosponsor, Ro Khanna (Calif.), for comment on why that word was included at all since the law does not relate to national security. Neither responded.
But Massie told journalist Michael Tracey back in September that a similar provision to redact info related to “national defense” was included because, "You have to put that in there if you’re going to get them to sign it."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who fought against the release of the files until the bitter end but ultimately voted for the bill along with all but one member of the House, invoked what he called "national security concerns" in a last-ditch effort to stop the discharge petition that brought the Epstein bill to the House floor.
It echoed what Bondi herself said back in March when asked on Fox News why any information besides victims' names would need to be stricken from the record: "Of course, national security."
"If large sections of the files remain redacted or withheld, the public may face a truncated version of 'transparency,' one that protects many of the powerful rather than exposes them," wrote independent journalist Brian Allen. "This is not just a story about Epstein. It is a stress test of our system of accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Calls for Vote to Release 'FULL' Epstein Files to Public
The Trump administration is facing suspicion from all sides of burying information about the convicted sex criminal, who has a well-documented history with Trump. "This is about transparency and restoring trust, not partisan politics," said Khanna.
Jul 13, 2025
U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna said he will attempt to force a vote in Congress to release all the government's files pertaining to the notorious financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"On Tuesday, I'm introducing an amendment to force a vote demanding the FULL Epstein files be released to the public," Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted Saturday night. "Speaker [Mike Johnson] must call a vote and put every Congress member on record."
The administration of President Donald Trump has been accused in recent days of covering up information about the extent of the financier's crimes and his connections to powerful individuals, including President Donald Trump himself.
"Why are the Epstein files still hidden? Who are the rich and powerful being protected?" Khanna asked.
Since Epstein's death in 2019 in federal custody following charges of child sex-trafficking, the billionaire investor has been the subject of rampant speculation.
Though his death was officially ruled a suicide, some have speculated that Epstein was murdered to prevent him from implicating other elite "clients" in his sex-trafficking ring. Epstein had relationships with powerful individuals, including former President Bill Clinton and the U.K.'s Prince Andrew.
Trump also has a well-documented history with Epstein. They have been extensively photographed together. And last year, an audio tape was released in which Epstein described himself as "Donald Trump's closest friend."
In June, amid a public falling-out with the president, billionaire Elon Musk said that the Trump administration, which he'd just departed, was covering up the files to protect Trump.
"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," he wrote. That is the real reason they have not been made public."
During the 2024 campaign, Trump said he would "probably" release the so-called "Epstein files" to the public. Meanwhile, many members of his Department of Justice—including FBI Director Kash Patel—rose to prominence in part by accusing Joe Biden's administration of covering up secrets about Epstein to protect powerful Democrats and other elites.
During his confirmation hearing, Patel said he would "do everything if confirmed as FBI director to make sure the American public knows the full weight of what happened."
In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ would be "lifting the veil" on "Epstein and his co-conspirators." She said she had Epstein's client list "sitting on my desk right now to review" and promised that "a lot of names" would be revealed. Though in subsequent days, little was released beyond information that was already public.
A memo released July 7 by the DOJ later stated that there was "no incriminating client list" and that Epstein indeed committed suicide. It also said that "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."
This reversal resulted in widespread anger, including from many Trump supporters directed at Bondi, who they accused of covering up information that might damage the president.
"Pam Blondi [sic] is covering up child sex crimes that took place under HER WATCH when she was Attorney General of Florida," wrote one of Trump's closest confidantes, Laura Loomer. "Bondi needs to be fired."
The following day, Trump chastised a reporter for continuing to ask about Epstein.
"Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years… Are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable," the president said.
He would later write a long Truth Social post in which he defended Bondi and urged the public to "not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about."
The post received an almost totally negative response on Trump's own social media app.
The administration's dismissive response to the mysteries surrounding Epstein has led to suspicion across the political spectrum, including from some of Trump's closest allies.
"He said 'Epstein' half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein," wrote Musk on X. "Just release the files as promised."
Khanna is now hoping to wield the widespread backlash to force the administration to come clean about what it knows.
"This is about transparency and restoring trust, not partisan politics. The public outcry is apparent," he said. "The files should be fully released and can be done so consistent with DOJ principles of protecting victims and the innocent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Demands Release of 'Critical' Documents on Patel Ahead of Confirmation Vote
"Kash Patel has a dangerous track record of putting his loyalty to Trump before our national security," said one critic, "and the U.S. senators and the American public deserve to know where his allegiances would stand if confirmed."
Feb 20, 2025
As the U.S. Senate headed toward a likely vote to confirm Kashyap "Kash" Patel, a conspiracy theorist and loyalist to President Donald Trump, to lead the FBI, a government watchdog warned the vote will serve as "a historic test" of Republican lawmakers' priorities as it called for the release of a special counsel report that could reveal "critical information" about the nominee.
Accountable.US demanded that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia allow the release of the second volume of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on Trump's handling of classified documents after he was voted out of office in 2020.
The report, said the group Wednesday, may show that Patel misled the public with his claim that Trump declassified documents before leaving office. Trump said after government documents were found at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, that the papers had been appropriately declassified—a claim several of his administration officials said was baseless but which Patel quickly tried to corroborate.
"No evidence has emerged to support Mr. Patel's claim," reported The New York Times in January. "No written blanket declassification order—or any written contemporaneous reference to any such oral order—has ever surfaced. And nobody communicated to national security officials any records or information that they should now treat as declassified."
Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida barred the Department of Justice (DOJ) last month from releasing the second volume of Smith's report, and rejected a motion filed by the watchdog group American Oversight last week calling on her to reverse the order.
With a separate case filed by American Oversight in the D.C. District Court, arguing that portions of the report should be released under the Freedom of Information Act, Accountable.US said Wednesday that the court "must allow the special counsel's report to be swiftly released before the Senate votes on Kash Patel's nomination."
"With Kash Patel's confirmation vote looming, Trump's DOJ and a Trump-appointed judge are standing in the way of the release of critical information which would shine a light on Patel's ability to serve as FBI director," said Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US. "Kash Patel has a dangerous track record of putting his loyalty to Trump before our national security, and the U.S. senators and the American public deserve to know where his allegiances would stand if confirmed."
"Patel's vote should be held until Americans can read [the special counsel report] for themselves," Carrk added.
In addition to Patel's unverified claims about the security of secret government documents, Accountable.US on Wednesday catalogued numerous other "reasons for disqualification," including the millions of dollars he amassed doing consulting work for a Czech arms company and other foreign entities; his threat to "come after people in the media"; his alleged perjury during his confirmation hearings regarding reports that he had given orders to fire FBI officials without having the authority to do so; and his profiteering off false claims that Trump won the 2020 election, which he has peddled to children in the form of a book titled The Plot Against The King: 2000 Mules.
"Kash Patel is not just uniquely unqualified to serve as FBI director, he shouldn't even be allowed in the building," said Carrk. "There's clearly no limit to where Patel will go to make a quick buck for himself and friends, including selling election denial propaganda to children and consulting for sketchy companies linked to forced labor and foreign adversaries."
Ahead of the expected Senate vote, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee held a press conference outside the FBI headquarters to warn that if confirmed, Patel would "misuse the resources of the bureau" and "weaponize the FBI against the president's opponents."
"Kash Patel, mark my words, will cause evil in this building behind us," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "And Republicans who vote for him will rue that day."
On Thursday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced she would vote against Patel's confirmation, saying his "political profile undermines his ability to serve in the apolitical role of director of the FBI."
Carrk said that "it should not take courage for Senate Republicans to reject Patel as a dangerously dishonest and unqualified choice for FBI head who will make the nation less safe and more vulnerable to foreign influence."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Patel would "be a political and national security disaster if confirmed," and noted that the Trump administration has plans to purge the FBI's ranks of thousands of agents who have investigated Trump supporters' violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Agents have filed a lawsuit to bar the DOJ from releasing the names of people who worked on the investigation, to avoid retaliation from Trump.
"Mr. Patel has been open about his plans to dismantle the FBI and seek retribution," said Durbin. "His directives as a private citizen have already thrown the bureau into chaos."
He called on Senate Republicans to "do publicly what they have told agents they want to do, and that is vote against Kash Patel."
"What is at stake," he said, "is the future of the FBI."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Plans to Release Jack Smith's Report on Trump Election Case
The attorney general intends to withhold the classified documents report while a related legal battle plays out but make it available to certain members of Congress, according to a court filing.
Jan 08, 2025
With less than two weeks until U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, the Department of Justice said Wednesday that outgoing Attorney General Merrick Garland will make public the portion of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report that deals with the Republican's attempt to circumvent his 2020 election loss—an effort that culminated in the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The full report that Smith sent Garland on Tuesday is in two parts—one for each federal case that Smith took over in 2022 but later dropped due to Trump's November win. Volume one is about election subversion, and volume two is about the ex-president's alleged mishandling of classified material, which led to a raid of Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence.
"The attorney general intends to release volume one to Congress and the public consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c) and in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter," the DOJ explained in a Wednesday filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
The filing relates to an attempt by Trump's co-defendants in the second case—valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira—to block the release of the report. The DOJ said that "to avoid any risk of prejudice to defendants Nauta and De Oliveira, the attorney general has determined, at the recommendation of the special counsel, that he will not publicly release volume two so long as defendants' criminal proceedings remain pending."
"For the time being, volume two will be made available for in-camera review only by the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon their request and agreement not to release any information from volume two publicly," the DOJ added. "This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the department while safeguarding defendants' interests."
The filing does not say when Garland will release volume one. The revelations of his plans came a day after Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon—who last July dismissed the classified documents case, leading to an appeal—ordered the DOJ to withhold Smith's final report, despite questions about her authority to do so.
Government watchdog groups and ethics experts have lambasted Garland for not going after Trump quickly and forcefully enough for his various alleged crimes—which critics argue could have prevented his looming return to office.
The president-elect is set to be sworn in on January 20. His attorneys claimed in a Monday letter to Garland that releasing Smith's report would "violate the Presidential Transition Act and the presidential immunity doctrine."
Trump's lawyers have seen a draft of Smith's report and offered a preview in the letter to Garland, writing in part that "volume one of the draft report falsely asserts, without any jury determination, that President Trump and others 'engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort,' was 'the head of the criminal conspiracies,' and harbored a 'criminal design,'" while "volume II asserts, without any supporting verdict, 'that Mr. Trump violated multiple federal criminal laws,' and that he and others engaged in 'criminal conduct.'"
Politico pointed out Wednesday that "Trump welcomed the public release of previous special counsel reports, including Special Counsel Robert Hur's devastating assessment of President Joe Biden."
The Republican-controlled Senate is already preparing to hold confirmation hearings for Trump nominees including Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and the president-elect's pick to replace Biden-appointed Garland.
Trump, meanwhile, has said that he is considering swiftly issuing pardons for his supporters charged and convicted for storming the U.S. Capitol four years ago—which opponents have warned "would be an affront to our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judge Orders Biden DOJ to Conceal Jack Smith Report
"Delay is the name of the game here," said one legal analyst. "If they can just stop the clock until January 20th, then... the attorney general will be a Trump appointee and they can kill the whole thing."
Jan 07, 2025
Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida, ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to temporarily withhold from the American public special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his investigations into the president-elect, despite questions about her authority to do so.
Cannon's order came in response to a Monday request by President-elect Donald Trump's longtime valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira, who are facing charges in a classified documents case brought by Smith. Trump was also charged in the classified documents probe, but Smith dropped the case against the Republican leader after he won the 2024 presidential election.
In their filing on Monday, Nauta and De Oliveira's attorneys called on Cannon to bar the release of Smith's final report, even though the classified documents case is currently before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta—not Cannon's court. The Justice Department is appealing Cannon's decision last summer to dismiss the classified documents case as the agency pursues charges against Nauta and De Oliveira.
Cannon wrote in her order Tuesday that Attorney General Merrick Garland, Smith, and other Justice Department employees are enjoined from "releasing, sharing, or transmitting" Smith's final report or "any drafts of such report" outside the DOJ. The judge said her order would remain in effect until the 11th Circuit rules on Nauta and De Oliveira's motion to prohibit the release of Smith's report.
Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said in an appearance on MSNBC that she doesn't believe Cannon has "any jurisdiction" over decisions surrounding Smith's report.
"But delay is the name of the game here," she added. "If they can just stop the clock until January 20th, then... the attorney general will be a Trump appointee and they can kill the whole thing and say, 'There's no report to disclose.' So that's the goal here."
Speaking to reporters Tuesday just ahead of Cannon's order, Trump claimed he didn't "know" the Florida judge—despite appointing her—but praised her as "brilliant."
Trump on Judge Cannon who he appointed: I don't know the judge in Florida, but we had a brilliant judge in Florida.. her opinion was so brilliant that they dropped the appeal pic.twitter.com/rjzsNANHyu
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 7, 2025
Smith said in a filing earlier Tuesday that his office is still "working to finalize" the report on his investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. By law, special counsels are required to submit a final report to the attorney general, who has the authority to decide whether to make the findings available to the public.
Smith said in his filing that he would not transmit his report to Garland before 1:00 pm on Tuesday, and that the attorney general would not release the findings before the morning of January 10—if at all. It's unclear how Cannon's order will impact Smith's timeline.
Trump's lawyers have demanded that Garland withhold Smith's report entirely, claiming in a letter to the attorney general on Monday that making it public would "violate the Presidential Transition Act and the presidential immunity doctrine."
In their letter to Garland, Trump's attorneys—who have reviewed Smith's confidential report in recent days—revealed that the first volume of the document states that the president-elect "engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort" and was "the head of the criminal conspiracies" surrounding the 2020 election.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Garland Urged to 'Show Any Smattering of Spine' and Release Jack Smith Report on Trump
"This is his last chance to do something right," said one activist.
Jan 07, 2025
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland faced calls Monday to release special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his investigations into Donald Trump as quickly as possible after the president-elect's legal team demanded that the Justice Department withhold the findings from the public.
In an emailed letter to Garland—sent on the fourth anniversary of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol that Trump incited—the president-elect's attorneys demanded that Smith "terminate all efforts toward the preparation and release of this report," claiming its disclosure would "violate the Presidential Transition Act and the presidential immunity doctrine."
"If Smith is not removed, then the handling of his report should be deferred to President Trump's incoming attorney general, consistent with the expressed will of the people," wrote Trump's lawyers, who were permitted to review the two-volume report in recent days.
One of the authors of the letter to Garland, Todd Blanche, is Trump's nominee to serve as deputy attorney general in the incoming administration.
The demand from Trump's lawyers intensified calls for Garland to make Smith's findings available to the public.
"Merrick Garland has exactly one more chance to show any smattering of spine—he has two weeks to release Jack Smith's report," wrote activist Jon Bauman, president of the Social Security Works PAC. "This is his last chance to do something right."
Smith was tasked with investigating Trump's unlawful hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. The special counsel dropped both federal cases shortly after Trump won the 2024 election, arguing that "the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated."
But Smith stressed that the decision was "not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant."
Under federal regulations, special counsels are required to submit reports on their findings to the attorney general, who can decide whether to publicize the findings.
In addition to Trump's pressure campaign against Garland, two of the president-elect's former co-defendants in the classified documents case are pushing Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to bar the Justice Department from releasing Smith's report.
Politico noted that it's not clear whether Cannon has the authority to grant that request.
"After she dismissed the case—ruling that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional—the Justice Department appealed to the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals," the outlet observed. "That court, not Cannon, currently has control of the case."
Smith said in a filing on Tuesday that his office is "working to finalize a two-volume confidential report to the attorney general explaining the special counsel's prosecution decisions."
"The attorney general will decide whether any portion of the report should be released to the public," the new filing continues. "The attorney general has not yet determined how to handle the report volume pertaining to [the classified documents case]... but the department can commit that the attorney general will not release that volume to the public, if he does at all, before Friday, January 10, 2025 at 10:00 am."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Utterly Unhinged': Trump-Appointed Judge Dismisses Classified Docs Case
"This is how republics collapse," one lawyer said, noting that even if the decision is reversed, it will likely delay "Trump's trial long enough to prevent any form of accountability before the November election."
Jul 15, 2024
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dismissed the criminal classified documents case against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee in a Monday decision denounced as politically motivated and "a punch in the mouth to the rule of law."
The Florida-based judge's dismissal came as the Republican National Convention kicked off in Milwaukee, Wisconsin after Trump survived an assassination attempt at a Saturday campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump is expected to formally accept the GOP's presidential nomination on Thursday.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel for a pair of federal probes after Trump announced the current presidential campaign in November 2022. Trump was finally indicted for his handling of classified documents the following June. He faces 40 charges in this case alone.
After Trump on Monday announced U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate and received enough delegate votes to secure the Republican nomination, a spokesperson for Smith confirmed that "the Justice Department has authorized the special counsel to appeal the court's order."
"Unless the 11th Circuit and ultimately SCOTUS disagree, Trump goes free for walking out of the White House with top secret documents."
Cannon, in response to Trump's motion to dismiss, had agreed with the ex-president's defense team that "Smith's appointment violates the appointments clause of the United States Constitution" and dismissed the superseding indictment.
Cannon wrote that "both the appointments and appropriations challenges as framed in the motion raise the following threshold question: Is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no."
"None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment... gives the attorney general broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith," she continued. "Nor do the special counsel's strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise."
Cannon's decision could be reconsidered by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta or the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a conservative supermajority that includes three Trump appointees. Journalists and legal experts on Monday framed the dismissal as just the latest move the judge has made to benefit the man who appointed her.
The Associated Press pointed out that Cannon previously "appointed an independent arbiter to inspect the classified documents recovered during the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago, a decision that was overturned months later by a unanimous federal appeals panel," and "since then, she has been slow to issue rulings—favoring Trump's strategy of securing delays—and has entertained defense arguments that experts said other judges would have dismissed without hearings."
The New York Times noted that "Judge Cannon's ruling came exactly two weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas deeply questioned the constitutionality of Smith's appointment in an odd concurrence in the Supreme Court's landmark ruling granting Trump broad immunity against criminal prosecution," which stemmed from Smith's other case against Trump.
University of Alabama law professor and MSNBC legal commentator Joyce White Vance also highlighted how Cannon's decision—which she roundly criticized and called "absolutely incredible"—came after Thomas' concurrence.
"Unless the 11th Circuit and ultimately SCOTUS disagree, Trump goes free for walking out of the White House with top secret documents. At best, this is seriously delayed," said Vance, adding that she was "disgusted."
Congressman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said that "the dismissal of this case reflects a clear bias for the former president and the outlying opinion of the far-right wing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
"To dismiss this case would be a miscarriage of justice," he added. "I urge Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith to appeal this egregious decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals."
As the Times reported: "The ruling rolls back nearly 30 years of how special counsels have gotten their jobs. Special counsels are governed by Justice Department regulations set through the statutory authority of the attorney general."
MSNBC host Chris Hayes accused Cannon of failing to do her job correctly by defying precedent and potentially hoping that the nation's highest court will uphold her decision.
"Just to be crystal clear: SCOTUS has upheld special counsels repeatedly. Cannon is a district court judge, her job is to apply controlling precedent," he explained. "She's doing this because she thinks the MAGA court is on the same page as her and Trump's lawyers and will go along."
Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid suggested that Cannon's timing was intentional, saying: "She saw the nonstop media coverage of the shooting, used that distraction to overturn decades of legal precedent without citing a single case in her ruling's favor, and dismissed Trump's classified documents case. This is how republics collapse."
"To be sure, Cannon's absurd ruling is so extreme that only one of the MAGA justices supported it in his immunity decision (Thomas). Her decision will likely be reversed because it has absolutely zero basis in precedent whatsoever. It is utterly unhinged," he added. "But Cannon's indefensible opinion still serves its purpose of delaying Trump's trial long enough to prevent any form of accountability before the November election. That was the move all along."
Damon Silvers, a visiting professor at University College London, said that "it's important to understand Judge Cannon's dismissal of the criminal case against Trump as both an attempt to grant him legal immunity AND an effort to escalate tensions in our country for political purposes. The right response is an appeal."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder also called for an appeal, saying in a statement that "this is a lawless, outlier decision with no basis in statute or case law. It is deeply dangerous for accountability and checks and balances going forward."
"This decision should and assuredly will be appealed immediately," he added. "It endangers the very concept of ensuring the most powerful people in government have to follow the law."
While fighting this case, Trump in May was convicted of 34 felonies in New York for the falsification of business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election. He faces two other cases—one overseen by Smith and another in Georgia—related to his attempt to overturn his 2020 loss to Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection.
This post has been updated with developments including Donald Trump's vice presidential selection and Jack Smith's appeal plans.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Charges in Biden Classified Docs Case, Unlike Trump
"If Trump had cooperated with the Department of Justice—instead of lying to investigators, again and again—he might have avoided at least some of the 91 criminal charges currently pending against him," said Rep. Jerry Nadler.
Feb 08, 2024
Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded that "no criminal charges are warranted" after investigating U.S. President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents from before he took office in 2021, according to a report released Thursday.
"We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president," Hur stressed in the report, made public over a year after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him to lead the probe into materials found at Biden's Delaware residence and the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington, D.C.
Before Biden was elected president, he served as vice president and a U.S. senator from Delaware. The special counsel noted that "materials recovered in this case spanned Mr. Biden's career in national public life... He used these materials to write memoirs published in 2007 and 2017, to document his legacy, and to cite as evidence that he was a man of presidential timber."
Hur explained that although investigators found evidence that the president "willfully retained and disclosed" classified materials—including documents about Afghanistan and notebooks with his handwritten entries about U.S. national security and foreign policy—after his vice presidency, "the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," the Republican special counsel wrote of the 81-year-old president.
Politico reported that "Biden's attorneys also wrote directly to Hur and his team before the report's publication to complain about the focus on the president's memory lapses. As documented in the report, they called the focus 'gratuitous' and urged Hur to revise his summarizations, saying it was beyond his 'expertise and remit.'"
Hur's report comes as the Democratic president seeks reelection in November. The GOP front-runner, former President Donald Trump, is facing 91 charges across four criminal cases. The two federal cases, overseen by Garland-appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith, focus on the Republican's interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified materials.
Trump quickly seized on Hur's report. In a campaign email with the subject line, "Biden not charged for classified docs in his garage!" the Republican wrote: "He's mishandled classified docs... And now, his crimes are being SWEPT UNDER THE RUG!"
The ex-president declined to acknowledge that he is named in the report, which states:
With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.
Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.
Addressing the report in remarks to Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, Biden said that "this was an exhaustive investigation going back literally more than 40 years" and Hur "acknowledged that I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays," even sitting for hours of interviews while handling an international crisis.
"I was especially pleased to see the special counsel make clear the stark differences between this case and Donald Trump," Biden added. "Bottom line is, the special counsel in my case decided against moving forward with any charges and this matter is now closed. I'll continue to do what I've always done: stay focused on my job like you do."
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that "MAGA Republicans will no doubt now call to investigate the investigators—it's their favorite move—but the Hur report effectively ends the discussion. President Biden cooperated fully with the special counsel and redacted no portion of the special counsel's report."
"Unlike Trump, President Biden has nothing to hide," Nadler added. "And the contrast here is striking. If Trump had cooperated with the Department of Justice—instead of lying to investigators, again and again—he might have avoided at least some of the 91 criminal charges currently pending against him."
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) also emphasized in a lengthy statement that Biden "fully cooperated" with his probe and did not exert privilege over any of the report while "Trump willfully and unlawfully held onto hundreds of presidential and classified records."
In addition to four criminal cases, Trump faces legal efforts to kick him off this year's ballots by voters and experts who argue that he is constitutionally barred from holding office after engaging in insurrection on January 6, 2021. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court—which includes three Trump appointees—heard arguments for a case focusing on Colorado's primary ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy