Democrats revive allegations around Trump classified document case in latest political battle with Justice Department
By Annie Grayer, Katelyn Polantz, CNN
(CNN) — Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin asserted in a new letter that newly released Justice Department files show that prosecutors once considered whether President Donald Trump had improperly retained classified material relevant to his business interests after his first term.
Raskin said the Justice Department had revealed the consideration in a batch of material it turned over to Congress on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Trump. But Raskin’s assertions about the disclosure drew swift and immediate pushback from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who asserted on Wednesday the congressman was seizing on “untrue and salacious claims” that were not a part of the charges against Trump. And a separate source familiar with the case told CNN the consideration of Trump’s business interests was “speculative” and did not ultimately play a major role in the criminal case.
Raskin, though, said the disclosures raised important questions. And he accused the Department of Justice of potentially breaking the law by sharing documents with Congress related to the classified documents case that had been barred from release by a federal judge. Earlier this year, a Trump-appointed federal judge blocked the release of Smith’s final report on Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified records.
Raskin’s letter is the latest salvo in a simmering dispute with Republicans who want to discredit Smith and his prosecutions of Trump. Democrats argue the documents both underscore politicized releases of information by the Justice Department and shed more light on Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. Trump has long said the case against him was part of a broader political attack from the left and repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, and the Justice Department called Raskin’s letter a “cheap political stunt” which contained “baseless” accusations.
Concerns over DOJ’s releases
In the letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Raskin said that DOJ provided several documents related to the case to the House Judiciary Committee on March 13 that included non-public information “apparently barred from release” because Judge Aileen Cannon had ordered the material to remain under seal.
“A significant portion of the pages in one production are marked ‘Contains 6(e) and Sealed Material’—material that would be a crime for DOJ prosecutors to disclose to third parties, including to Congress. This document not only seemingly actually contains grand jury material, it obliterates the government’s own argument before Judge Cannon,” Raskin wrote. “6e” material refers to grand jury information and is named after the law that strictly prohibits it from becoming public.
The assertion comes as the Justice Department has also argued recently in court that more information than what was revealed by Smith in the criminal indictments should stay secret.
Raskin argued that DOJ made the latest disclosure to congressional Republicans as part of a “campaign of retribution” against the prosecutors who conducted the federal probes into Trump and claimed that the release that DOJ recently made to the House Judiciary Committee was “cherry-picked.”
But Raskin also pointed to assertions in the material that might be damaging for Trump.
“Apparently blinded by the frenzied search to find any scrap of evidence that could be twisted and distorted to level an attack against Special Counsel Smith (despite constantly coming up empty-handed), you have, quite amazingly, missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon,” Raskin wrote.
A memorandum DOJ turned over to Congress, for example, captures how the prosecutors and FBI were determining if classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago could have related to Trump’s financial dealings.
“FBI has already since found both—that classified documents were commingled with documents created after Trump left office and that there are classified documents that would be pertinent to certain business interests,” the memo said, according to a copy reviewed by CNN.
The memo also described possible factors that could aid in strengthening the case and become evidence of willfulness.
One factor, the memo said: “Trump possessed classified documents pertinent to his business interests—establishing a motive for retaining them. We must have those documents.”
The theory that Trump had a business interest in some of the classified documents he kept from his first presidency never become central to the criminal mishandling and obstruction charges Smith brought in court against the former president. And prosecutors from Smith’s office never argued in court Trump’s business was part of motives.
The FBI had found a document or documents that related to a country Trump might have had a business interest in, according to a person familiar with the Smith investigation. But it was a speculative investigative avenue, and never amounted to much for the case itself, the person told CNN.
The classified documents case against Trump ended in 2024 prior to a trial, when a Trump-appointed judge in Florida decided Smith’s office didn’t have prosecutorial authority. The Judge, Aileen Cannon, decided the office lacked congressional approval.
Raskin also wrote that the documents reinforced the sensitive nature of what Trump was alleged to have withheld.
In the memorandum, prosecutors wrote that Trump retained documents that were “highly sensitive” and “the type of documents that only presidents and officials with the most sensitive authority have,” with one document only accessible by potentially just six people, including the president.
The documents shared with Congress also assert that Susie Wiles, now Trump’s chief of staff, was on a plane when Trump allegedly showed a classified map to individuals on board. At the time, she was serving as the CEO of Trump’s Super PAC, according to Raskin’s letter. Investigators were known to have scrutinized Trump’s alleged showing of a map that contained classified information to others, including Wiles.
Raskin asked Bondi to respond to a host of questions, including who else Trump showed the map to and what documents were so sensitive that only six people in the entire federal government had access to them.
Raskin also called on Bondi to release all remaining investigative materials by April 14 subject to all rules regarding grand jury secrecy.
The Justice Department said in its statement that “it is no surprise that (Jack Smith’s) files contain salacious and untrue claims about President Trump. The accusations Raskin makes are baseless. Judge Cannon’s protective order was not violated, and none of the documents produced by DOJ violated 6e as none of them disclosed matters occurring before a grand jury.”
Some of the materials shared with Congress contain the label: “Privileged & Confidential, Contains 6(e) and Sealed Material” according to documents reviewed by CNN. The Justice Department said “documents marked ‘6e’ contained redactions of any 6e material.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, meanwhile, said that the president “did nothing wrong, which is why he easily defeated the Biden DOJ’s unprecedented lawfare campaign against him and then won nearly 80 million votes in a landslide election victory.”
Another alleged improper disclosure
The issue of court-ordered secrecy around investigative records from the special counsel’s investigations of Trump are becoming more of an issue as Capitol Hill Republicans continue to press on Smith’s office’s work.
While Raskin accused DOJ of potentially improperly disclosing court secrets to the House Judiciary Committee, two former federal prosecutors who were top deputies of the special counsel have accused DOJ of improperly disclosing court secrets from the Smith investigation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Smith’s deputy, JP Cooney, and another top former prosecutor Molly Gaston made a formal complaint in November to the Justice Department inspector general, saying the department may have improperly released nearly 200 grand jury subpoenas to the Senate. They claim only Justice Department officials would have had access to the subpoenas, according to the complaint they made, which was reviewed by CNN.
A Justice Department spokesperson said none of the documents obtained by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley disclosed grand jury material, and that material from Smith’s investigation now in the Senate’s possession was “lawfully disclosed.”
Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, say prosecutors under Smith were in the wrong for what’s revealed in the documents, arguing the prosecutors shouldn’t have used typical investigative techniques in tracing members of Congress’ contacts around the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.
Justice Department prosecutors are bound from disclosing grand jury records without court approval, and court records that are under seal, like Volume II of Smith’s final report, would need a judge’s approval to be disclosed by any party who might have the documents.
Congress enjoys immense Constitutional protections and wouldn’t be bound by grand jury secrecy rules or court orders on Justice Department documents they obtain in their own investigations.
Smith’s team is bound by grand jury secrecy rules and court sealing orders and thus has declined to speak in more detail about parts of their investigation during recent congressional testimony, out of fear of criminal prosecution.
Trump has repeatedly called for his Justice Department to pursue his political enemies, including Smith.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
