Judge Cannon ruling may not be 'the last word' on Jack Smith’s report: WSJ

Before former President Joe Biden left office, then-special counsel Jack Smith delivered a final report on his federal cases against Donald Trump: the election interference case, and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. The election interference part was publicly released, but the documents part went unreleased. And on Monday, February 23, Judge Aileen Cannon — the Trump appointee assigned to the documents case — ruled that Smith's classified documents report should remain unreleased.

Cannon wrote, "The former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order."

In an editorial published after Cannon's ruling, the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board argues, "Though this is an unsatisfying ending, there is wisdom in it."

"Mr. Trump's alleged effort to hide classified files at Mar-a-Lago was another of his self-destructive fugues," the board writes. "Shortly after he was sent a subpoena, according to Mr. Smith's indictment, Messrs. Nauta and De Oliveira sought to purge the club's surveillance footage. The IT director was allegedly pulled aside and told 'that 'the boss' wanted the server deleted. Yet voters had this detail in 2024, when they reelected Mr. Trump anyway. A reinaugurated president then unceremoniously forced Mr. Smith to close up shop."

The WSJ board continues, "The place to test criminal charges, and litigate claims of privilege over the evidence, is a courtroom. It isn't supposed to happen in a public debate over a report written by the prosecution."

The WSJ editorial writers note, however, that Cannon "might not get the last word, since groups seeking disclosure are appealing."

"But prosecutors who don't have a criminal case aren't supposed to simply dump disputed evidence," the board argues. "The Epstein files fiasco is the mistake that proves the rule."