Judge Cannon refuses attempt at secrecy in Trump documents case

Yesterday Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern Florida District Court issued an order in the Florida case of United States v. Donald Trump that many interpret to be to the considerable disadvantage of Special Counsel Jack Smith as he prosecutes that case. Indeed her order includes language that has shocked legacy media reporters covering this case.

Judge Cannon hears from special counsel…

The Florida case of U.S. v. Trump (the Documents Case) has its own docket page on Court Listener. Special Counsel Smith has charged three different people with related offenses in a new superseding indictment in the case.

Specifically it charges that:

• Donald J. Trump kept certain classified documents longer than he was entitled to because he is nlonger President,
• Waltine Nauta, Trump’s valet, helped Trump store these documents at a place not of the government’s choosing, and
• Carlos de Oliveira, Trump’s chief information-technology officer, deleted surveillance footage that might implicate Trump.

On August 2, Smith moved for a “Garcia hearing” on “potential conflicts of interests that may arise from attorney Stanley Woodward, Jr.’s prior and current representation of three individuals the Government may call to testify at the trial of his client Waltine Nauta.” U.S. v. Garcia, 17 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1975). (The “Fifth Circuit” in view here is not the present Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead it is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that once was the Fifth Circuit.)

Smith created a problem for himself by making two filings (ECF 95 and 96) under seal while filing the motion. ECF 95 was a motion for leave to file a supplement under seal; ECF 96 was that supplement. Apparently it held further information about the proceedings of the Washington, D.C. grand jury, which investigated the January 6 Case, that would be relevant in the Documents Case.

… and tersely rebukes him

Yesterday Judge Cannon not only denied the motion for leave to file under seal but also ordered the clerk to strike from the record themotion and the supplement. Thus if the Special Counsel wants to introduce anything like that into the record, it must remain in public view. Judge Cannon said motion-for-leave and the supplement did not set forth a good basis for keeping either under seal.

Furthermore, Stanley Woodward, Jr., attorney for Waltine Nauta, had indicated a desire to respond. Judge Cannon has ordered a response no later than August 17. She also ordered Mr. Woodward, and not Mr. Smith, to:

address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.

She gave the government until August 22 to respond. Then she said she would allow lawyers for Trump and De Oliveira to respond by August 17, if they wish.

Mark Stevens at Patriot Newsfeed suggested this might be so embarrassing as to prompt someone – he didn’t speculate on whom – to remove Smith from the case. He also shared this post on Platform X:

Some X users reacted in outrage, but their remarks are not worth sharing here.

As The Daily Caller reported, several legacy media organs howled with outrage. One reporter actually suggested someone should remove Judge Cannon from the case.

Her quarrel, evidently, is that the judge “disclose[d] the existence” of the D.C. grand jury investigation. That’s demonstrably false. The government itself disclosed the involvement of the D.C. grand jury in its motion for a Garcia hearing. That motion was never under seal.

The grand jury in this district and a grand jury in the District of Columbia continued to investigate further obstructive activity, and a superseding indictment was returned on July 27, 2023.

More screeching

That wasn’t all. Another MSNBC contributor suggested Judge Cannon might have her order reversed on appeal.

He refers to a previous ruling on the appointment of a special master to review materials taken in the Mar-A-Lago Raid.

A former federal prosecutor also threw in his two sesterces:

Then someone else raised this possibility:

See also this video: