The Department of Justice and two former co-defendants in the Mar a Lago classified documents case have jointly given the federal judge overseeing the matter a fresh reason to keep the second volume of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report out of public view. Their position was outlined in a brief status update filed Monday, marking the latest development in a case that has been stalled for months.
The report was submitted by Trump valet Waltine Nauta, former Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, and the DOJ. It followed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ order last month directing U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to rule within 60 days on attempts by two groups to intervene after what the appeals court described as her “undue delay.”
Read Also: Virginia Giuffre’s Memoir Alleges Early Encounters With Epstein While Working at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago
Those intervention requests, filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight, have remained untouched since February. Their filings came shortly after the Trump administration’s DOJ dismissed charges against Nauta and de Oliveira, ending the men’s active appeals.
Judge Cannon, appointed by Donald Trump, previously dismissed the president’s criminal case in July 2024 and ruled that Smith was improperly appointed as special counsel. Months later, she blocked the release of Smith’s Mar-a-Lago report. When she issued the injunction in January, Cannon said that because Nauta and de Oliveira still had active appeals, releasing Volume II could jeopardise their “due process rights to a fair trial.”
With no trial expected to occur during Trump’s second term, both the DOJ and the former defendants argued Monday that the report should remain under seal. They said the injunction still serves a purpose and urged the judge not to lift it.
Read Also: ‘Relaxed’ Melania Trump is “Not A Presence at Mar-A-Lago At All” after leaving the White House
The status report from U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones asserted that the intervention effort is improper and asked Cannon to reject the requests without addressing their arguments for public access. The filing warned that Nauta and de Oliveira “would suffer” extraordinary prejudice if Volume II were released.
The DOJ also referenced arguments it made in March opposing the release, emphasising that the decision ultimately rests with Attorney General Pam Bondi. The former defendants went further, insisting Volume II “should be relegated to the dustbin of history, where it belongs,” saying its disclosure would cause “further unjust prejudice” after a year and a half of intense publicity surrounding their now dismissed indictments.
The DOJ said Monday it “understands and appreciates” their concerns and confirmed it does not oppose keeping the January 21, 2025, order in place.
If Cannon does lift the injunction, however, the DOJ asked that Nauta and de Oliveira receive advance notice. The filing proposed that the department give the men’s counsel sixty days’ written notice before releasing any redacted version, giving them time to seek further relief from the court if Bondi indicates she intends to make Volume II public.
READ NEXT
- Whoopi Goldberg Walks Off The View Table, Saying Producers ‘Threw That Admiral Right Under the Bus’
- Instagram CEO orders staff back five days a week in push for a ‘Winning Culture’
- Easy DIY Home Improvement Projects for Beginners
- ‘We’re Paying for Our Own Vote’ Ranchers Blame Trump Decisions for the Bankruptcies Hitting Their Communities
- Jon Stewart Mocks Trump’s MRI Story: “That’s Not Physically Possible”