Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 08, 2024

Legal experts sounded the alarm after the judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case rejected special counsel Jack Smith's bid to keep government witnesses secret.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

She is releasing the names of witnesses for sh*tlers bunch of thugs to threaten and kill.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-02-08 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Legal Experts Say Judge Cannon Could Face Removal

And I could run a two-minute mile. Chances of either happening are about the same.

#2 | Posted by censored at 2024-02-08 06:00 PM | Reply

@#2

I agree with your skepticism.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-08 06:28 PM | Reply

Smith can and should appeal this ruling.

It's not normal and obviously just another tactical delay by this trumpian judge bowing before her master. But now she is threatening national security and the safety of witnesses.

It's all fun and political games until someone gets hurt.

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-02-08 06:34 PM | Reply

A different take on this story:

"Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that prosecutors had not explained why the list had to remain sealed from public view. However, she also said in an order Monday that the list may not have to be filed on the public docket at all, leaving open the possibility that those names may never be made public. Her order also allows the special counsel's team to resubmit its request.

A group of two dozen news organizations, including CBS News, had argued Monday the list should be made public in a federal court filing. Attorneys for the news outlets wrote that "full transparency"at every step of this historic case"is essential."

www.cbsnews.com

#5 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-02-08 06:42 PM | Reply

Note, I mistakenly clipped and linked an article from last June. The salon article shows that Cannon has reaffirmed her decision,but it is pretty much the same as before, she says they didn't present justification. It was the press that sought public release of the witness list, not the Trump Team, who took no position.

"Following an independent review of the Motion and the full record, the Court determines, with limited exceptions as detailed below, that the Special Counsel has not set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation from the strong presumption in favor of public access to the records at issue."
Cannon questioned Smith's concern for witnesses, writing that "the Special Counsel's sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing." The Press Coalition, which is comprised of major media companies, also asked the court to unseal Trump's redacted motion in unclassified form, citing public interest."

It is not at all unusual for witness lists, transcripts and other court records to be considered public record. It is more unusual that they be sealed, and to do so there is a pretty high bar. In my experience working cases involving confidential informants, there was a hearing for EACH witness providing specific evidence that they would likely be endangered if their identity was publicly released. The tendency in criminal cases (of any kind) is to err on the side of protecting the rights of the defendant.

#6 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-02-08 07:11 PM | Reply

@#5 ... A group of two dozen news organizations, including CBS News, had argued Monday the list should be made public in a federal court filing. Attorneys for the news outlets wrote that "full transparency"at every step of this historic case"is essential." ...

Of course "news outlets" would want the list to be public.

They'd like to to report on it. It is what they do.

Or is your comment implying that news organizations should not report certain news items. If so, based upon what criteria?

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-09 12:17 AM | Reply

#6

You're a fraud.

#8 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-02-09 12:29 AM | Reply

She could face removal, or she could hope for elevation to the federal Supreme Court, if Trump ever gets back in. She certainly has paid her dues, she has been marching in step with the cult leader from day one.

#9 | Posted by Hughmass at 2024-02-09 07:11 AM | Reply

#8. Umm. You do understand he's EXACTLY correct. It's very rare to hide the names of witnesses in court unless there is a hearing with the judge for each witness you choose to redact. The reason is the United States judicial system codifies the right to confront your accusers and hiding their identity is anathema for that.

#10 | Posted by ABH at 2024-02-09 09:51 AM | Reply

#8. Umm. You do understand he's EXACTLY correct. It's very rare to hide the names of witnesses in court unless there is a hearing with the judge for each witness you choose to redact. The reason is the United States judicial system codifies the right to confront your accusers and hiding their identity is anathema for that.

#10 | POSTED BY ABH

You have no clue what you are talking about.

1. This is about making the witness information public, not about whether Trump's team gets the witness list. It has nothing to do with "right to confront". That applies to whether Trump's team gets to question them...which they will.

2. It is insanely rare to have a hearing for each witness you request to hide the identify of, especially when the reason for redacting their identity from public records is done for the same reason.

Did you get your Law Degree at Trump U?

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-02-09 10:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In my experience working cases involving confidential informants, there was a hearing for EACH witness providing specific evidence that they would likely be endangered if their identity was publicly released."

How many times were names disclosed when the prosecutor told the judge it would affect national security?

I'm guessing it never came up, but if it did, the name was never disclosed.

As usual you gloss over the important fact.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-09 10:32 AM | Reply

11. No. Just a 24 year history of going to court.

But you do you!

#13 | Posted by ABH at 2024-02-09 11:27 AM | Reply

"It is not at all unusual for witness lists, transcripts and other court records to be considered public record."

In cases regarding national security and classified documents it's highly unusual.

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-02-09 11:34 AM | Reply

She could face removal.

But she won't.

Because something something something Merrick Garland will never approve it.

Let's not forget how we got Merrick Garland....he was nominated by Obama to SC AFTER Obama consulted with ORRIN HATCH who would be acceptable to the GOP for the SC.

I am FKING tired of having to consult with the GQP bunch of traitors who they would approve.

Grow some fkng balls.

#15 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-02-09 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

^^^ THIS ^^^

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-09 12:02 PM | Reply

In view of the disposition of the Biden classified document case and the words of special prosecutor about his lack of cognitive ability, why is Trump case even going forward?

The threat to America from Joe Biden as President exceeds anything we've ever faced. Even his SECDEF Austin goes on medical leave without telling anyone. This is beyond political and is a dire threat. Biden must be replaced.

#17 | Posted by Robson at 2024-02-09 09:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

17

You're a sick puppy.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-09 09:46 PM | Reply

Not just a sick puppy, but a damn dishonest lying stupid one to boot.

#19 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-09 09:50 PM | Reply

If Cannon does face removal, this will be why:

Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads)
@NormEisen

Lotta news but something MAJOR happened last night

Smith filed motion for Judge Cannon to reconsider order unsealing names & stmts of some witnesses in MAL docs case

This could be start of getting Cannon thrown off case under 11 Cir bias rules (1/x)

Cannon already has two strikes against her from when she oversaw the docs investigation

First the 11th Cir preliminarily reversed a stay she imposed

And then they permanently reversed her outrageous appointment of a special master

This latest order may be strike three ...

Why? 1st of all, reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy that should be employed sparingly" to "correct CLEAR ERROR and PREVENT MANIFEST INJUSTICE"

So the fact that Smith made this motion shows how wrong Smith thinks Cannon was & how dangerous he thinks her order was 3/x

And what Smith argues is pretty shocking

He shows how Cannon applied the *wrong standard* to make the Gov to unseal discovery materials

She said the Gov failed to meet the very high bar of showing both a "compelling interest" AND "narrow tailoring" 4/x

But that's wrong--that extremely stringent requirement shouldn't be applied to discovery materials attached to a discovery filing

As Smith shows, the press and the public do not have the right, under the 1st Am or common law, to access *discovery materials* 5/x

In fact Smith goes through the cases Cannon herself cited in her own order & explains why they actually do NOT support her position 6/x

Instead the Gov only needs to meet a much easier standard--they just have to show there was "good cause"

And Smith outlines how that test was clearly met--cataloguing the "significant interests in maintaining confidentiality" 7/x

Smith focuses on risks of witness intimidation--which he argues are "far from speculative in this case" & lists people incl judges & Smith's staff who've been threatened

This is key bc it addresses threat of violence that lurks behind each of Trump case, not just the MAL one 8/x


#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-02-09 10:14 PM | Reply

Continued:

As Smith writes there "is a well-documented pattern in which judges, agents, prosecutors, and witnesses involved in cases involving Trump have been subject to threats, harassment, and intimidation"

Smith points out that EVEN CANNON HERSELF has received death threats

Smith argues Cannon's conclusion that Gov's "witness-safety concerns are too speculative...is misplaced" bc a "court's duty is to prevent harms to the witnesses or the judicial process" preemptively

That is a judge's core responsibility--& Smith alleges Cannon has failed 10/x

And he even points to the Bob Menendez case in New York as an example of what a court should do

There the judge denied a similar motion to unseal discovery materials " even without the voluminous evidence of "concrete harms to witnesses" in the Trump case 11/x

Smith argues it would be a "manifest injustice" if Cannon made witnesses' identities & roles public immediately & exposed them to harm

He goes through each request for sealing exhibits (or imposing limited redactions), showing why they were narrow, tailored & appropriate 12/x

So where does that leave us?

Whatever happens next will be dramatic

Either Cannon reconsiders, which would be an admission of a big screwup, or she sticks with her ruling 13/x

And if she sticks with her ruling, it looks like Smith may appeal straight to 11th Cir

That'll set up another battle over Cannon"the 11th Cir slapped her down when she appointed a special master to review the classified docs during investigation 14/x

It's been clear that Cannon should've recused or been removed from this case

& she appears to be continuing her pattern of unusual erroneous rulings that consistently & improperly favor Trump

That conflict may now be coming to a head ... stay tuned 15/15

twitter.com

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-02-09 10:15 PM | Reply

She could face removal.
But she won't.
Because something something something Merrick Garland will never approve it.
Let's not forget how we got Merrick Garland....he was nominated by Obama to SC AFTER Obama consulted with ORRIN HATCH who would be acceptable to the GOP for the SC.
I am FKING tired of having to consult with the GQP bunch of traitors who they would approve.
Grow some fkng balls.
#15 | POSTED BY NIXON

I understand your disgust with Merrick Garland, but what is happening now in this case will be decided in the courts. If Smith files an appeal, it will go to 11th Circuit, see my above posts, who will determine what, if anything, happens to Cannon's rulings, upheld or overturned.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-02-09 10:21 PM | Reply

PS If you follow the link in #21 you can read the excerpts from Jack Smith's filing which support the points Eisen is making.

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-02-09 10:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23 - I watched a great analysis yesterday on the process and how wrong Cannon is - on so many levels. Thanks for what you posted, Gal. That was a great overview and abstract of Smith's motion on Law&Crime. They even call out Norm Eisen's run down on X.

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-10 08:22 AM | Reply

BTW - Smith's motion is linked in the article, and it's 22 pages. Reading it I'm reminded why I didn't choose to be a lawyer. :)

#25 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-10 08:23 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort