ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge is demanding clarity from the U.S. government regarding the continued classification of a segment of the memo that authorized Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into foreign election interference and former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, which has remained classified for seven years since its release.
During a court hearing held on Friday in Alexandria, Virginia, Judge Leonie Brinkema instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation by Wednesday as to why this specific section should stay classified.
Media organizations are advocating for the disclosure of the part of the memo authored by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, believing it pertains to allegations that Egypt covertly funneled $10 million to support Trump’s financially struggling campaign in the closing days of the election.
While much of Rosenstein’s memo related to the Mueller investigation has already been made public, particularly during the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, some critical details remain under wraps. Manafort faced conviction in 2019 and was sentenced to nearly four years in prison, although he was later released to home confinement in 2020 due to the pandemic. Ultimately, he received a pardon from Trump in December 2020.
At the latest hearing, Brinkema indicated to the lawyers for the press coalition that she lacks the authority to publicly disclose anything from the trial, including the redacted section of Rosenstein’s memo, if it remains classified. Thus, she emphasized that her only course of action was to compel the government for a justified explanation regarding the sustained classification.
Prosecutor Drew Bradylyons stated that several government entities have a vested interest in the classification and requested an extension of 30 days to furnish a detailed rationale to Brinkema on whether the memo segment could be made public or must stay classified. However, Brinkema found this timeframe excessive and instead granted the government until Wednesday to deliver its explanation.
Brinkema, who has reviewed the classified segment, asserted, “Unless they provide a compelling justification, I don’t see why it should remain sealed.”
Ted Boutros, an attorney representing the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and The Washington Post, stressed the public’s significant interest in this information, particularly in light of Trump’s ongoing presidential campaign. He argued that the rationale for maintaining secrecy has diminished, especially since the investigation’s conclusion and the emergence of broader allegations regarding Egypt.
The lawyers for the press coalition indicated in their court filing that the Egypt probe dealt with crucial national concerns, including the possibility of a foreign entity providing bribes and illegal campaign contributions to a presidential candidate who subsequently assumed the presidency and is now seeking re-election. They contended that there is a compelling public interest in full transparency regarding the situation.
It remains uncertain whether uncovering the classified passage would yield substantial new insights into the investigation. Reports associated with the Egypt inquiry surfaced as early as 2020 following a CNN investigation, with further elaborations disclosed in a Washington Post article earlier this year.
Allegations indicate that Mueller’s team was examining claims that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi attempted to bolster Trump’s 2016 campaign with a $10 million cash payment. Reportedly, an organization with ties to Egyptian intelligence withdrew this sum in cash just as Trump contributed the same amount to his campaign.
Trump’s campaign has denied any wrongdoing, highlighting that the investigation culminated without any criminal charges. Nevertheless, former prosecutors have claimed that their inquiry faced obstruction and interference from high-ranking officials within the Trump administration.