By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Trump-appointed judge has ruled that the final report from Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified records and obstruction of justice will not be released. The judge cited the unusual nature of a prosecutor disseminating findings after a case was dismissed, stating it is not customary for such reports to be publicly shared when charges did not result in a guilty verdict. This decision represents a significant victory for former President Trump in his efforts to keep the special counsel’s findings private. Transparency groups continue to pursue appeals for the release of the report, arguing for the public’s right to know what was uncovered in the investigation.
Read the original article here
Judge Aileen Cannon has decided not to release the special counsel’s final report concerning Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents, a move that has sparked considerable discussion and concern. This decision effectively keeps the findings of the investigation, led by special counsel Jack Smith, from public view. The report, which concluded its work before Smith departed his post in early 2025, was handed over to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. While a portion of the report, detailing allegations about Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, was made public, a legal battle initiated by Trump and his codefendants prevented the second volume from being released.
The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, represents a significant victory in Trump’s ongoing efforts to prevent the special counsel’s findings from becoming public knowledge. This outcome has led many to question the integrity of the judicial process and express frustration with what they perceive as preferential treatment. The underlying case involved accusations of mishandling classified materials and obstruction of justice at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.
The decision has raised eyebrows among those who believe the public has a right to know the full extent of the findings. The fact that a judge would bar the release of such a significant report, especially in a case involving national security and potential obstruction, has fueled speculation and criticism. Many are drawing parallels to other instances where information has been kept from the public, leading to a sense of distrust and a belief that the legal system is being manipulated.
The rationale behind Judge Cannon’s decision appears to hinge on the fact that a trial has not occurred and that Trump, like any defendant, is presumed innocent. However, this line of reasoning has been met with skepticism, as the indictment itself is understood to contain substantial evidence of wrongdoing. Critics argue that the suppression of evidence in such circumstances is inherently suspect and undermines transparency, a principle often cited as crucial to a functioning democracy.
The situation has led to calls for accountability, with some suggesting that Judge Cannon’s actions warrant impeachment or disbarment. The perception is that her rulings are not based on impartial legal interpretation but on a desire to protect Donald Trump. This sentiment is amplified by the belief that other individuals, if found to have engaged in similar conduct, would likely face harsher consequences.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that the decision to withhold the report is a direct attempt to shield Trump from public scrutiny and potential repercussions. The argument is that if the evidence were not damaging to him, there would be less resistance to its release. This is compounded by the fact that other cases involving classified information have resulted in public disclosure, creating a perceived double standard.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond this specific case. Many are concerned that it sets a precedent for the further suppression of information, particularly in high-profile investigations involving powerful individuals. The lack of transparency is seen as detrimental to the public’s understanding of justice and the rule of law.
The ongoing legal wrangling and the judge’s decisions have created a climate of distrust. The hope for many is that despite this setback, the truth will eventually come to light, whether through further legal appeals, potential leaks, or future proceedings. The desire for accountability and transparency remains a strong undercurrent in the public discourse surrounding this development.