DOJ Shields Embarrassing Trump Secrets: Dems Cry Cover-Up, GOP Blasts “Spying”

Paul Riverbank, 12/17/2025Capitol Hill erupts as DOJ withholds Trump secrets, igniting fierce partisan battles over transparency.

Representative Jamie Raskin, always quick to seize the mantle for Democratic transparency, has been particularly vocal. “They’re afraid of what’s in that report,” Raskin charged, gesturing toward opaque committee doors with a hallmark blend of outrage and exasperation. He’s argued repeatedly that hiding behind confidentiality only encourages selective leaks and, worse, political spin. Recent history, he points out, shows that special counsels have come out from behind the curtain, testifying openly and releasing their findings to the public.

That’s not quite how Republican leaders see matters. The narrative from their camp is more legalistic, if no less heated. They stress that Volume I of Smith’s report—focused on the contested 2020 election—was already made public. But it’s Volume II, delving into Trump’s handling of classified records, that remains locked under court order. “Attorney General Bondi is doing nothing except following Judge Cannon’s instructions,” one committee aide argued Thursday, referencing the pending judicial decision in early 2026. That’s the timeline the Justice Department is sticking to, come what may.

A letter from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, filed not long ago, summed up the administration’s stance: to release Volume II now, before Smith’s work is done, would yield an incomplete—and thus potentially misleading—portrait of the facts. Blanche’s language was pointed, warning that premature publication could become just another vehicle for “partisan attacks” and rule-breaking grandstanding.

Not that Smith’s team enjoys the benefit of the doubt from everyone. Republicans, especially Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, have zeroed in on Smith’s use of FBI resources. The revelation that investigators had quietly gathered thousands of phone records from lawmakers during the Trump inquiry set off a familiar round of accusations—chief among them, that the Justice Department has overstepped, casting too wide a net in pursuit of its answers. “Spying,” is Jordan’s word for it, and he’s not backing down.

Meanwhile, the flames of suspicion are stoked just as fervently on the Democratic side. This time, though, the focus falls on Attorney General Pam Bondi—and, curiously, her brother Brad Bondi, a high-powered legal adviser. Democrats have gone so far as to demand a pile of internal DOJ paperwork, raising the specter of conflicts of interest after a string of DOJ decisions seemingly aligning with Brad’s clients. These include dropped charges in recent cases and a DOJ maneuver in a Hawaii lawsuit, timed just before argument.

The context here is a Justice Department in flux. Earlier this year, the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility saw its director replaced—an unusual occurrence, one that has only heightened Congress’ appetite for scrutiny. “It all underscores how accountability mechanisms must operate independently,” Democrats argue, with unbegrudged skepticism.

Amid the heated rhetoric and crossfire of accusations, both political parties find their images cast in the shadows of suspicion. Raskin, never one to mince words, openly acknowledges the murk: “It’s hard to say why we need to know the things that we don’t know,” he said—a curious admission, perhaps, but one that neatly captures the present mood.

For now, the core details everyone cares about remain firmly under wraps, as legal and political battles grind onward. What happens next will hinge not just on the next moves in Congress, but on wider questions about secrecy, transparency, and who ultimately gets to decide what the public deserves to see. In Washington, the argument often isn’t just about what’s known, but about how the unknown is wielded in the ongoing contest for political advantage.

Tensions are running high on Capitol Hill as special counsel Jack Smith prepares for an upcoming, closed-door deposition with lawmakers—a setting certain to set tempers alight, even before the first question is asked. One might imagine this would be theater enough, but the real fireworks are crackling over whether Smith’s findings about former President Trump and classified materials will see the light of day at all.Representative Jamie Raskin, always quick to seize the mantle for Democratic transparency, has been particularly vocal. “They’re afraid of what’s in that report,” Raskin charged, gesturing toward opaque committee doors with a hallmark blend of outrage and exasperation. He’s argued repeatedly that hiding behind confidentiality only encourages selective leaks and, worse, political spin. Recent history, he points out, shows that special counsels have come out from behind the curtain, testifying openly and releasing their findings to the public.That’s not quite how Republican leaders see matters. The narrative from their camp is more legalistic, if no less heated. They stress that Volume I of Smith’s report—focused on the contested 2020 election—was already made public. But it’s Volume II, delving into Trump’s handling of classified records, that remains locked under court order. “Attorney General Bondi is doing nothing except following Judge Cannon’s instructions,” one committee aide argued Thursday, referencing the pending judicial decision in early 2026. That’s the timeline the Justice Department is sticking to, come what may.A letter from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, filed not long ago, summed up the administration’s stance: to release Volume II now, before Smith’s work is done, would yield an incomplete—and thus potentially misleading—portrait of the facts. Blanche’s language was pointed, warning that premature publication could become just another vehicle for “partisan attacks” and rule-breaking grandstanding.Not that Smith’s team enjoys the benefit of the doubt from everyone. Republicans, especially Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, have zeroed in on Smith’s use of FBI resources. The revelation that investigators had quietly gathered thousands of phone records from lawmakers during the Trump inquiry set off a familiar round of accusations—chief among them, that the Justice Department has overstepped, casting too wide a net in pursuit of its answers. “Spying,” is Jordan’s word for it, and he’s not backing down.Meanwhile, the flames of suspicion are stoked just as fervently on the Democratic side. This time, though, the focus falls on Attorney General Pam Bondi—and, curiously, her brother Brad Bondi, a high-powered legal adviser. Democrats have gone so far as to demand a pile of internal DOJ paperwork, raising the specter of conflicts of interest after a string of DOJ decisions seemingly aligning with Brad’s clients. These include dropped charges in recent cases and a DOJ maneuver in a Hawaii lawsuit, timed just before argument.The context here is a Justice Department in flux. Earlier this year, the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility saw its director replaced—an unusual occurrence, one that has only heightened Congress’ appetite for scrutiny. “It all underscores how accountability mechanisms must operate independently,” Democrats argue, with unbegrudged skepticism.Amid the heated rhetoric and crossfire of accusations, both political parties find their images cast in the shadows of suspicion. Raskin, never one to mince words, openly acknowledges the murk: “It’s hard to say why we need to know the things that we don’t know,” he said—a curious admission, perhaps, but one that neatly captures the present mood.For now, the core details everyone cares about remain firmly under wraps, as legal and political battles grind onward. What happens next will hinge not just on the next moves in Congress, but on wider questions about secrecy, transparency, and who ultimately gets to decide what the public deserves to see. In Washington, the argument often isn’t just about what’s known, but about how the unknown is wielded in the ongoing contest for political advantage.