The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has handed over the unpublished portion of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report to a federal judge, according to a Jan. 16 court filing.
DOJ officials dropped charges, including obstruction and conspiracy charges, against Trump in the wake of his 2024 election win, citing the agency’s position of not prosecuting sitting presidents.
The DOJ has withheld volume two of Smith’s report, at least for now, because its potential release has been challenged by Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who were charged with Trump with crimes including mishandling classified documents and making false statements to federal investigators.
Cannon in the order also said that the government shall provide an opportunity for lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveira to review volume two before a Jan. 17 hearing on the matter, if defendants’ counsel request to review the document.
In their notice of compliance, DOJ officials said they gave Cannon an unredacted copy of volume two as well as a redacted copy “representing what the Attorney General would make available to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees absent an order from the Court foreclosing those procedures.”
The redactions protect the secrecy of matters that took place before the grand jury that indicted Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira, among other information, the officials said. They also said they were arranging for defense counsel to review both unredacted and redacted copies of volume two ahead of Friday’s hearing.
Officials said they complied with the order even though they believe that Cannon does not need to review the volume because Garland has decided not to make volume two available while criminal proceedings are ongoing against Nauta and De Oliveira.
“The only remaining issue before the Court is therefore whether making Volume Two available to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for in camera inspection upon their request under the conditions identified by the government in its previous filings would risk prejudice to the defendants,” they wrote. “A review of the contents of Volume Two is not necessary to make that determination.”