Experts divided on prosecution of attorney who sent Trump report disguised as cake recipe

A former Justice Department prosecutor is facing court on the other side after she was caught sending herself information from special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into classified documents taken by President Donald Trump.

Carmen Mercedes Lineberger, 62, was indicted after she sent Volume II of Smith's report to her personal email account with the subject line “chocolate cake recipe” and “bundt cake recipe," the DOJ press release said.

Smith's report, Volume I, was released publicly, but Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon refused to allow Volume II to be made public.

Cannon ruled in 2025 regarding the report prohibiting "the department of Justice, its officers, agents, officials, and employees from [] releasing, sharing, or transmitting [the Report] outside the Department of Justice, or [] otherwise releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside of the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in [the Report] or in drafts thereof."

Court documents for the indictment do not show that she shared it with anyone outside the Justice Department, only that she allegedly sent the document to herself on her personal Gmail account under a disguised name.

"If convicted, Lineberger faces up to twenty years’ imprisonment for destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations, three years’ imprisonment for concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records, and up to one year imprisonment on each count of theft of government property valued at less than $1,000," the DOJ release said.

The court document alleges that it violates Title 18, USC, Section 641.

National security expert Marcy Wheeler asked legal experts for their opinions on whether there were "problems" with using "641 for stealing stuff from the government."

National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss commented, "It’s literally in the DOJ manual not to bring these cases, although there is a possible exception here because it’s subject to court order and (maybe?) classified."

A retired federal appeals lawyer said that "without an express allegation that the dollar value of the stolen property exceeded $1000, the offense under section 641 is a misdemeanor."

Another person wondered if the woman could use the Whistleblower Protection Act as part of her defense.