“Three years ago this month, the Justice Department indicted Donald Trump under the Espionage Act for concealing and refusing to return classified documents—the first time a president had been charged with a crime, let alone one so grave. But President Trump hasn’t had to face trial, and he hasn’t had to fully account to the public for his actions, either.  There are a few reasons for this. The Justice Department abandoned the criminal case against Trump after he returned to the White House in 2025, citing a long-standing policy against the prosecution of sitting presidents. Trump’s personal lawyers have worked closely with the Justice Department, now staffed by Trump’s former personal lawyers, to bury the official report about the criminal investigation into Trump’s conduct. Meanwhile, Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida has effectively prohibited Jack Smith, the special counsel who wrote the report, from talking about the report or even testifying about it to Congress. In The New York Times this morning, I explain why the suppression of Smith’s report is so disturbing and why the report’s disclosure is so essential:

[I]f presidents are to be immune from prosecution while in office, it’s all the more important that Congress and the public have access to the information that would empower them to hold the president accountable in other ways…Mr. Smith investigated Mr. Trump for conduct that appears to have entailed an astonishing betrayal of the public’s trust as well as the nation’s security. Legislators and ordinary citizens should have the opportunity to read the report for themselves. It is incoherent to immunize the president from prosecution on the theory that he can be held accountable through the political process—and then to deny Congress and the public information that would help them do so.

As I explain in the essay, which you can read here [Note – beSpacific provided free access], the Knight Institute is suing for the release of Smith’s report, asserting that the public has a right of access to the report under the First Amendment and the common law. Judge Cannon rejected our arguments, but we’ve challenged her ruling and a federal appeals court in Miami will hear oral argument in the case in the fall…”