Special counsel Jack Smith’s highly anticipated report on his charging decisions in Trump’s Jan. 6 election subversion case will be made public, federal prosecutors said Wednesday, but the same cannot be said of information underpinning Trump’s classified documents case.
Details from that now-dismissed classified documents case should be held back from public view, federal prosecutors said Wednesday, because litigation is still underway in Florida against Trump’s valet and his Mar-a-Lago estate property manager.
The disclosure was made in federal appellate court by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton in response to a recent request from Waltine Nauta, Trump’s valet, and Carlos De Oliveira, his property manager, to stop the publication entirely. Boynton said this was unnecessary.
Smith, he wrote, already recommended to Attorney General Merrick Garland that to “avoid any risk of prejudice” to Nauta and De Oliveira, it would be best to release only information about the Jan. 6 charging decisions so long as criminal proceedings are pending against Nauta and De Oliveria.
The report will, however, be available for private review by members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveria have pushed for dismissal of their case by citing U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling that Smith was unlawfully appointed to investigate Trump.
Smith, for his part, has appealed that ruling, and Boynton wrote in Wednesday’s motion that the special counsel’s appointment isn’t even relevant here. The only thing that matters is Garland’s “handling” of the report, Boynton wrote, adding that Cannon’s dismissal did not create a nationwide injunction on special counsels.
In the meantime, Smith has followed department guidance by taking his findings to Garland and leaving it to him to decide whether the reports will go public.
“That should be the end of the matter,” Boynton wrote.
He continued: “To avoid the potential need for further emergency litigation in this Court, the United States respectfully requests that this Court make clear in denying the motion that its resolution of this question should be the last word (absent review by the en banc court or the Supreme Court).”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.