A recent prediction by former federal prosecutor Harry Litman suggests that President Donald Trump’s latest legal maneuver to keep a significant report from former special counsel Jack Smith under wraps may be nearing its end. The case centers around allegations concerning Trump’s handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In an episode of the podcast “Talking Feds,” aired Thursday, Litman elaborated on the legal proceedings surrounding the contentious Volume II of Smith’s report, which is scheduled for oral argument on November 2. Trump, along with his co-defendant Walt Nauta, has sought to delay the release of this critical document.

Volume II details Smith’s investigation into Trump’s purported accumulation of classified materials after leaving the presidency. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, has thus far barred the report’s release, asserting that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.

The Knight First Amendment Institute, which is appealing Cannon’s decision, responded to a request for delay filed by Trump’s legal team. The defense cited scheduling conflicts for Nauta’s attorney and personal commitments for co-defendant Carlos De Oliveira’s counsel. Trump’s lawyer also stated a need to consult with him, framing the report as a document of “singular historic importance.”

Litman, however, expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of these delay tactics. He remarked that appellate courts are generally reluctant to grant such requests, stating, “Courts of appeals are very reticent to say, well, you’ve got your son’s graduation. They very rarely grant them.”

Further criticizing the defense’s attempts to postpone proceedings, Litman emphasized that their actions seemingly reflect a broader strategy of delay. “Trump doesn’t know the first thing about this case,” he asserted, suggesting that the primary objective appears to be to drag out the process until after the upcoming midterm elections.

Pointing out Judge Cannon’s previous handling of the case, Litman remarked that her past actions have mirrored a pattern of inaction. He claimed she “sat on it and sat on it” after the Knight Institute’s intervention request in February 2025, suggesting that the appeals court is unlikely to accept further delay.

Litman also contended that Nauta and De Oliveira, both of whom have completed their cases, have little to lose if the report is released. He described the situation as “like a feather on one side and a two-ton weight on the other,” implying that the gravity of the report’s contents outweighs any potential harm to the defendants.

Predicting the court’s next steps, Litman stated, “I’ll bet you see this motion denied in pretty short order, and the oral argument take place on November 2.” However, he acknowledged that the outcome may hinge on which judges comprise the panel.

The ongoing legal battles surrounding Trump and the release of Jack Smith’s report come at a politically charged time, with the midterm elections looming. The implications of these proceedings could affect not only Trump’s political future but also public perception of his administration and governance style.

As the November 2 hearing approaches, all eyes will be on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Legal experts and political analysts alike are contemplating how the court’s decisions will impact both Trump’s legal standing and the broader political landscape.

While Trump and his allies attempt to forestall the inevitable release of this report, the Knight First Amendment Institute emphasizes the report’s importance for public knowledge. The tension between legal strategies and the demand for transparency adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate political and legal story.

As litigation continues, the dynamics of the situation could shift dramatically, especially with the prospect of a pivotal ruling on the horizon. What remains clear is that the legal battles involving Trump are far from over, and the stakes are continually escalating.

The potential release of Smith’s report may reveal crucial information that could shape public discourse during the midterms. Its repercussions might extend beyond the courtroom into the realm of electoral politics, highlighting the intertwined fates of law and politics in contemporary America.

Ultimately, how the appellate court rules—and the timing of its decision—could become defining moments in this saga. While Trump seeks to maintain control over the narrative, the judicial system may bring about changes that spell trouble for the former president and the candidates aligned with him.

The unfolding situation underscores the complex relationship between law, politics, and the media. As the November hearing approaches, it will undoubtedly draw significant public interest and heightened scrutiny.

In a political environment rife with division, the implications of the court’s decision could reverberate through future elections, guiding voter sentiment as the nation navigates uncharted waters ahead.