The Department of Justice, Donald Trump aide Waltine Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira have all urged Judge Aileen Cannon to keep a confidential draft of former special counsel Jack Smith's recent report sealed.

The parties all believe that Cannon's potential revelation of Volume II of Smith’s examination into their roles in Trump's classified documents case could have a host of harmful effects, as Law & Crime reports.

Smith's report, divided into multiple parts, scrutinized Trump and his associates over the way they managed secret documents.

This report arose amid allegations that Trump, with assistance from Nauta and De Oliveira, may have wrongly dealt with sensitive information.

DOJ, Nauta, and De Oliveira's Joint Position

The Department of Justice and the attorneys for the two associates recently filed a joint status update. This file was sent to Judge Cannon's attention to discuss the potential public release of the contentious second volume of the report.

Despite existing court orders that bar the legal department and the U.S. attorney general from making Volume II public, the parties argue against making the report open to the public.

All parties suggest that, if the ban is ever lifted, a public release should remain under the control of the U.S. Attorney General. They also recommend a rule that requires the DOJ to notify lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveira sixty days before any release.

Assertions Regarding Ownership and Process

The DOJ asserts the report is under its jurisdiction since no current charges exist against the two associated individuals. Any judgment to disseminate the details of Volume II should therefore be left to the attorney general's discretion. Public speculation might stir if grand jury information, currently protected, is reviewed by the court.

Nauta and De Oliveira worry that their ongoing legal challenges could become complicated if the report emerges publicly. With no indication from the attorney general about wanting to publish Volume II, these concerns focus on potential bias that an incomplete disclosure might have.

Both associates emphasize the potential harm they believe could follow from a release. Revealing a report thrusts the involved parties into an unfavorable spotlight and might skew public opinion, they contend. Their legal representatives emphasize the need to ensure fair treatment for both individuals throughout the pending process.

Pervasive Concerns of Fairness and Potential Prejudice

Beyond that, they call to question the legitimacy of Jack Smith's appointment, referencing a past ruling that argued his investigation was unconstitutional. Thus, they question whether his work should influence ongoing proceedings.

Among the bigger arguments is whether allowing a partial or pre-empted release of his findings would undermine fair legal process. Such attention, they argue, could morph the court's power into a one-sided narrative that unfairly maligns them.

Advocating for prolonged legal protection, Nauta and De Oliveira stress that any disclosures shouldn't unfairly brand them before full legal resolution. A mistimed release could establish unmerited public judgment and should therefore be handled with utmost care.

Outlining the Conditions of a Potential Disclosure

All parties agree that in handling a carefully redacted version, sufficient time and caution must guide any public disclosure decision.

The involved parties seek continued judicial oversight to preserve their rights. Should Judge Cannon reconsider the current injunction, they wish the attorney general to control the narrative’s timing and breadth.

The recent court submission underscores these focal points: the importance of continued confidentiality, respect for judicial process, and adherence to fair legal standards. Balancing public interest with individual rights remains at the forefront. Nauta and De Oliveira effectively underline the stakes involved.

Concluding Thoughts on Report Dispute

Moving forward is a delicate balance between handling potentially sensitive information and respecting the individuals involved. The legal framework surrounding this case places significant emphasis on ensuring no parties endure undue legal bias. This complex weave of legal, ethical, and constitutional considerations poses ongoing challenges.

At this junction, much rests in Judge Cannon's hands as the legal processes continue to unravel. How these proceedings unfold could set a meaningful precedent for how similar issues arise in the future. Cannon's reflections and decisions remain of pivotal interest to all parties involved.