Trump Dismisses Calls to Overturn Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago Report, Signals Potential Appeal to Judge Cannon

In a dramatic twist in the ongoing Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, attorneys representing former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants have made a bold appeal to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. They are seeking what they describe as a “constitutional expungement” of the special counsel Jack Smith’s report. This request comes amid an active appeal that could potentially thwart their efforts.

On Tuesday, a succinct legal filing was jointly submitted by Trump, along with his former valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira. The trio, once defendants in a case concerning the alleged retention of classified documents and obstruction, have clearly signaled through their brief that they have reached their limit with the ongoing proceedings.

The pivotal question now hovering over the courtroom is whether Judge Cannon shares their sentiment. Cannon, appointed by Trump himself, previously dismissed the prosecution led by Jack Smith, citing that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful. This decision has made her role in the case particularly significant.

For nearly a year, Judge Cannon has faced pressure from American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. These organizations have been striving to intervene in the now-closed criminal case. Despite being labeled by Trump’s legal team as “liberal organizations” and alleged nonpartisan entities, their pleas have largely been met with silence from the judge.

The crux of the matter lies in a January 2025 injunction issued by Cannon, which prevents Congress members from accessing Volume II of Smith’s report on the Mar-a-Lago investigation. This injunction has been a point of contention, with the advocacy groups arguing for its removal, yet their arguments have so far not swayed the court’s stance.

Trump’s case had ended and his newly inaugurated administration ended the appeals of Nauta and de Oliveira. This meant that Cannon’s initial rationale behind the injunction — preventing “prejudice” to Trump’s former co-defendants who still had active appeals — no longer applied, in the view of the groups.

Cannon is one of few people to have actually read Volume II, having reviewed a redacted and unredacted version in her chambers. Not even a muzzled Smith reviewed Volume II before he testified in a deposition and at a public hearing, fearing that doing so could have violated Cannon’s injunction.

The injunction remains in place to this day, and while it is set to automatically expire on Feb. 24, Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira have in the meantime tried to “permanently” block the DOJ from releasing Smith’s “unlawfully prepared” report on their alleged crimes.

Ultimately, it is up to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to decide whether or how much of the report to make public, but Cannon’s order has allowed the DOJ simply to back Trump in court. Releasing a public report was the practice in John Durham, Robert Hur, David Weiss, and Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigations, and it’s what happened with Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation of Trump. The Mar-a-Lago volume stands alone as the exception.

American Oversight and the Knight Institute have said on appeal that the ex-defendants have been clear they want the “destruction of all copies of Volume II” so the “public will never have access to the Special Counsel’s findings.”

As the appeal continues, the interested non-parties in the Mar-a-Lago case have also asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to force Cannon to issue a stay before she can make that wish come true.

Lawyers for Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira responded Tuesday by alerting Cannon to the move, telling her the groups’ focus on the request for Volume II’s “destruction” overhypes an ask for the “constitutional expungement” of the report.

“In hopes of creating some unfounded sense of urgency, Knight Institute and American Oversight emphasize that Mr. Nauta’s and Mr. De Oliveira’s pending Motion for an Order Permanently Prohibiting the Release of Volume II includes a request for an order directing the destruction (i.e., constitutional expungement) of all copies of Volume II,” the filing said.

Slamming “highly speculative and bombastic claims about the potential harms that could ensue without a stay,” the former defendants pleaded with Cannon to act.

“Enough is enough. Former Defendants President Trump, Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira respectfully submit this Notice of the Petition and register their opposition to any stay of proceedings that would prohibit the Court from ruling on the motions pending before it,” the filing concluded.

On the other hand, the petition for a writ of mandamus before the 11th Circuit said that if Cannon “orders the destruction of the document at issue […] this Court’s jurisdiction will effectively be thwarted and Petitioners […] will have no ability to appeal the district court’s order to prevent it being carried out.”

Knight Institute senior counsel Scott Wilkens, upon filing the petition, said in a statement that there is “no good reason for withholding this report from the public.”

“The public has a right to the report under the First Amendment and common law, and the Freedom of Information Act requires its release as well,” Wilkens said.