A federal judge in Florida ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday not to release to Congress special counsel Jack Smith’s report on part of the investigation of President Donald Trump dealing with classified documents. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland had planned not to release the report about classified documents seized at Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago because charges remain disputed against two of his former co-defendants. But Garland said he would provide the report to the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon blocked that plan, ordering the Justice Department not to provide the report to lawmakers.
A federal judge in Florida on Tuesday blocked the office of ex-Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith from releasing a final report on Smith's classified documents case against President Donald Trump, arguing the release would deny a fair trial to two former Trump co-defendants. “Never before has the Department of Justice, prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings against a defendant – and absent a litigation-specific reason as appropriate in the case itself – sought to disclose outside the Department a report prepared by a Special Counsel containing substantive and voluminous case information. Until now," wrote South Florida US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, in her 14-page order.
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the release of the second volume of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation into President Trump. Judge Aileen Cannon had allowed the first volume to be released to a small group within Congress. The first volume relates to Smith's investigation into alleged election interference by Trump, while the second relates to the classified documents investigation. "Release of Volume II to Congress under the proposed conditions—without any enforcement mechanism to prevent public dissemination, and without any valid countervailing reason justifying a break from traditional norms—presents a substantial and unacceptable risk of prejudice to Defendants," Cannon wrote.
